@@surgeland9084 that comment was 10 months ago and over the past 4-5 months this semester at college i have kinda became to despite him now 😂😂 but i did not know that
@@mattmaher5686 Yeah, it was a question for a reason. But Locke was very transparently paid by the British government to defend slavery and genocide. That's part of why he contradicts himself so often.
@@surgeland9084 i didn’t know that specifically but thank you!! the only thing similar to that i remember addressing in class is that i asked how can Locke be such a defender of peoples natural rights but then also defend slavery and profit off slavery..
@@mattmaher5686 The simple answer is that Locke didn't see slaves as human beings but rather as objects. So "men" that is white, land-owning, able-bodied white men had a right to own slaves as an extension of their property rights. Does that make sense?
It is becoming more and more apparent that it has been planned and is a deliberate and sinister attack against the idea of freedom and those who enjoy it.
So America was abiding by these principles back at it's founding? 20% of the population were slaves? Literally property of other people. Of the remaining white 80% half were woman, meaning only 40% of the population would ever even theoretically have the chance to vote. Except there was also the clause of LANDING OWNING, which reduces the 40% pool of white men able to vote down to about 6% elligible to vote white, land owning, men. Anyone who thinks America was founded on the principles of freedom and democracy is an obscenely uneducated clown, or a classist, sexist, racist. So which is it?
I am graduate/dropout of Federal University Of Technology Owerri and I am still learning everything and anything for positive uses and not even earning mininmum wage yet
I wish today's youth understood Locke's concepts and why. I like what Candace Rice had to say about the problems today is due to jealousy. When the minority has more than the majority, the majority will tyrannize the minority. Our electoral college was set up to help prevent this. It looks like socialism/communism is a popular idea nowadays, it's nuts.
1. you sound damn near retvrded for not mentioning the liberal-capitalist backing most of that "reeducation" gets 2. I'm sorry but are the maJority (people at the bottom of the pyramid) supposed to appease the tip of the upper echelons?
Thank you. I have been following the Lockean breadcrumbs around You Tube and this video gets it right as far as Locke's views on human nature are concerned. Several other videos have tried to link Locke more closely to Rousseau in this regard. Rousseau bases his notion of the social contract on a state of nature that never existed. Locke's worldview is based on a more accurate reading of who we are as individuals. Unlike Rousseau, he's not a dreamer. Systems of governance built on Locke's concept of the social contract have thrived and led to prosperity. Rousseau's dreams became nightmares for the people forced to live under political systems based on his ideas. Locke got it right, Rousseau got it wrong, it's that simple.
At 2:20 you are incorrect sir. In the Britain we have a constitutional monarchy under constitutional restraint, not parliamentary restraint. The bill of rights 1688/89 was not a victory for parliament and parliament is not sovereign (meaning beneath no other). James II abdicated the throne in the glorious revolution as William & Mary of Orange came over on the promise from the men from the north to defeat James II. James fled and the people created the Declaration of rights 1688/89. This was offered to William and Mary as a condition of them taking the throne which they agreed to. Once they had formed a parliament they decided they should put the Declaration of rights onto the statute books which they did with the Bill of rights. If u read it, there’s some text at the beginning and then it is pretty much a word for word copy of the Declaration of rights. The coronation oath act was also passed at that time putting further restraint on the monarch who is there under contract to the people, to govern us according to the common law. Parliament swears allegiance and is beneath the monarch, who is in turn beneath the people as evidenced by the British constitution (yes we have one but the law society don’t want u to know that).
When I was nineteen, many decades ago, I had a series of dreams. One was the word "Philosophy" written over a pretty girls face and roses in her hair. Another dream was the words "nothing is possible without existential reference". I'm still working out the meaning because there is more than one way to read the words.
The mind means the Mind is a "Tablua rasa" is a Tabla Raza (blank slate) = a PIzarrón en Blanco, which means that as the years pass, the experience begins to incorporate data from the Reality, the Sensible world. But I can still see that this Idea is not even Locke's, it is Aristoteles because he was the first to separate the Real World from the Ideas, and that Locke was only making the Definition or Aristoteles' Concept of Reality more sophisticated. . Aristoteles was ahead more than 1000 years in Time before Locke
''...all the day-labourers and tradesmen, ...and dairy-maids ...as to have them perfect in ethics this way. Hearing plain commands, is the sure and only course to bring them to obedience and practice. The greatest part can not know, and therefore they must believe.'' - John Locke in The reasonableness of Christianity (1695)
Locke also defended that people (or perhaps he means soldiers) could be enslaved in war. I don't agree with this and neither with what you have quoted. But I think his take on the social contract is brilliant and his words and ideas against tyranny and for the rule of law are one of the cornerstones of our modern societies. :)
Most beliefs are coerced by violence. People don't choose to believe 2 + 2 = 4, they are forced to believe it by the nature of the world as it appears to them.
2 pies + 2 pies is 4 pies Human nature tends to observe symmetry with a welcoming eye, and all the more welcomed if it’s grandma’s home baked apple pie. The mathematical economy of supper is adorned at times by the interest of enough desert for all.
The mind significa la Mente is a "Tablua rasa" es una Tabla Raza (blank slate)= a un PIzarrón en Blanco, lo que quiere decir es que a medida que pasan los años, la experiencia comienza a incorporar datos de la Realidad, del mundo Sensible. Pero igualmente puedo ver que esta Idea incluso no es de Locke, es de Aristoteles, porque el fue el primero en separar el Mundo Real del Mundo de la Ideas, y que Locke solamente fue haciendo mas sofisticada la Definicón o el Concepto de Realidad de Aristoteles. Aristoteles estaba adelantado mas de 1000 años en el Tiempo antes que Locke
Locke was brilliant for sure. But I can only forgive the blank slate idea because he didn't know any better. Back then people didn't even know the link between thought, behavior, personality and the brain.
+The Goodly Dragon We're certainly born with some innate "ideas," if you want to call them that. If you're high up, be afraid because you might die. If something big is about to attack you, be afraid because you can get hurt. Women who look a certain way are beautiful [though you may not know why unless you add the knowledge of evolution on, the idea that some people look sexy and others don't is innate].
A baby does not know to be afraid of heights or violence from a larger threat; are these ideas still innate? Also, I don't think instinct = innate ideas.
Zeek Yes! A baby still has a developing brain. No matter what your culture is, these ideas will occur to you because they are already programmed into your brain, hence you are not a blank slate. For instance, I remember first getting horny at around eight years old. The idea of sex occurred to me even though it had never been taught.
If the idea is not present, or depends on the development of rational capacity to be realized, it can be argued that it is not innate because we cannot decisively judge another personal rational capacity (and they could disagree). Also, as I mentioned before, I don't think instinct equates to innate ideas; you being horny as a child is instinct. Ideas are distinct concepts; you hardly have a distinct concept of sexuality as a child, though you experience arousal. If anything, it seems that instinct provides the impetus for ideas (like sexuality), which were not yet realized.
He is considered a liberal. In his Second Treatise of Government he offers an explanation of the origin of private property but he doesn't give it an absolute value as far as I can see, because he argues that when one takes through his work what he needs from Nature, he must leave as much and as good for others. Also, he is considered a liberal because he sees the purpose of government being to preserve the life, libery and property of people and he is opposed to authoritarianism.
In our modern climate he would probably more center right, with a good lean towards libertarian. He would reject the big government, and identity politics of socialism. As the goal was a smaller government to maintain the rights of it's people and if they got to big the people were obligated to overthrow the government. But he would not be too far right, as he still respected tolerance of opposing ideas, as long as the worked well at maintaining a peaceful society where people were able to exercise their natural rights. Usually ultra conservative mind sets want to preserve their way of life, so they tend to be less tolerant of ideas that do not fit that mindset. Proto-Socialist ideas did not really become a goal of political philosophy until the late 1700's some 80 years or so after Locke's death, and they really did not become socialism until Marx really refined them in the mid 1800's. Most liberals before Marx tended to be more about laissez-faire Capitalist systems, where the government should take a limited role into business. Some of his ideas of human rights, and tolerance of those different than yourself can be seen in the ideas of modern liberalism...but there is a lot of hypocrisy there anymore. I'd say 20 or 30 years ago, at least in the US, the Democrats were more his version of classical liberal....back when the Democratic Party was the champion of free speech, and were more tolerant of new and often opposing ideas. But intolerance and the hatred of things like "Hate Speech" or "misinformation," would stand against Locke's ideas of reason, tolerance of those with different ideas. He would abhor the political violence of groups like Antifa and such as well as they seem to be lashing out towards the community and society as a whole. Ironically, he might be more in favor of January 6th, as that was a direct assault on a government the protestors felt no longer represented them. Of course, it is always hard to be 100% sure how people would really react when they saw and lived in our would...but I think this is an accurate stance he would have is he stuck to his ideas, and philosophy of the time he was alive, and then applied them to our would.
what does john lockes "improvement of understanding is for two ends: first our own increase of knowledge; secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others”. means?
This means not only do you acquire knowledge for your yourself but also pass on the knowledge because perhaps there will be people who will need your guidance in understanding it to or your mentorship
@@atsweiadjei1181 you can also think about it evolutionary like the lions hunting strategy is perceived and copied by its young and its young's young therefore passing the knowledge down
‘’...the first explicit formulation of Empiricism was by the British philosopher John Locke in the late 17th Century. Locke argued in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" of 1690 that the mind is a tabula rasa on which experiences leave their marks, and therefore denied that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience. However, he also held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone.’’ (www.philosophybasics.com) That Locke ‘believed’ that knowledge of a god was innate, totally voids anything else he had to say regarding ‘tabla rasa’. The only thing which is not tabla rasa is the genius, and more, capabilities of the intelligence an individual receives at the moment of their creation. That genius, and more, capability of intelligence would lead an individual to discern the difference between data which only masquerades as truthful knowledge, from data which is truthful knowledge, therefore it would lead the rigorously reasoning individual to a conclusion that a god has never been extant in reality, but only between the ears of ‘believers’, who have yet to promote a verifiable, repeatable proof of a god’s existence. That Locke purported ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. Summarises, John Locke without being overwhelmed.
been in philosophy and ethics classes for a couple years now and John Locke has always stood out to me. love him and his idea/theories
You do know what he was paid to defend, right?
@@surgeland9084 that comment was 10 months ago and over the past 4-5 months this semester at college i have kinda became to despite him now 😂😂 but i did not know that
@@mattmaher5686 Yeah, it was a question for a reason. But Locke was very transparently paid by the British government to defend slavery and genocide. That's part of why he contradicts himself so often.
@@surgeland9084 i didn’t know that specifically but thank you!! the only thing similar to that i remember addressing in class is that i asked how can Locke be such a defender of peoples natural rights but then also defend slavery and profit off slavery..
@@mattmaher5686 The simple answer is that Locke didn't see slaves as human beings but rather as objects. So "men" that is white, land-owning, able-bodied white men had a right to own slaves as an extension of their property rights. Does that make sense?
I hate school
me2
The more you know the harder it is for people to lie to you. Keep that in mind, someday it will come in handy.
Me too , glad those days are over
i forget everything in a day
What’s going on I love school
always remember knowledge is Power
But I just hate my professor he’s such a bad person
Thank you. A concise, good summary.
america has somehow shifted from these brilliant, basic principles.
ikr wtf
Less so than with the UK though
It is becoming more and more apparent that it has been planned and is a deliberate and sinister attack against the idea of freedom and those who enjoy it.
So America was abiding by these principles back at it's founding?
20% of the population were slaves? Literally property of other people.
Of the remaining white 80% half were woman, meaning only 40% of the population would ever even theoretically have the chance to vote.
Except there was also the clause of LANDING OWNING, which reduces the 40% pool of white men able to vote down to about 6% elligible to vote white, land owning, men.
Anyone who thinks America was founded on the principles of freedom and democracy is an obscenely uneducated clown, or a classist, sexist, racist.
So which is it?
and look at where we are now, four years later. even further away
this video is PERFECT for quick studying
Brilliant Thank you for such a fact packed video!
I am graduate/dropout of Federal University Of Technology Owerri and I am still learning everything and anything for positive uses and not even earning mininmum wage yet
Excellent work! Thank you!
I wish today's youth understood Locke's concepts and why. I like what Candace Rice had to say about the problems today is due to jealousy. When the minority has more than the majority, the majority will tyrannize the minority. Our electoral college was set up to help prevent this. It looks like socialism/communism is a popular idea nowadays, it's nuts.
Communism and Socialism simply advocate for the majority to own the means of production instead of a few
1. you sound damn near retvrded for not mentioning the liberal-capitalist backing most of that "reeducation" gets
2. I'm sorry but are the maJority (people at the bottom of the pyramid) supposed to appease the tip of the upper echelons?
Thank you. I have been following the Lockean breadcrumbs around You Tube and this video gets it right as far as Locke's views on human nature are concerned. Several other videos have tried to link Locke more closely to Rousseau in this regard. Rousseau bases his notion of the social contract on a state of nature that never existed. Locke's worldview is based on a more accurate reading of who we are as individuals. Unlike Rousseau, he's not a dreamer. Systems of governance built on Locke's concept of the social contract have thrived and led to prosperity. Rousseau's dreams became nightmares for the people forced to live under political systems based on his ideas. Locke got it right, Rousseau got it wrong, it's that simple.
Locke was a grifter who was paid to defend slavery and genocide. Kind of funny you left that out.
At 2:20 you are incorrect sir. In the Britain we have a constitutional monarchy under constitutional restraint, not parliamentary restraint. The bill of rights 1688/89 was not a victory for parliament and parliament is not sovereign (meaning beneath no other). James II abdicated the throne in the glorious revolution as William & Mary of Orange came over on the promise from the men from the north to defeat James II. James fled and the people created the Declaration of rights 1688/89. This was offered to William and Mary as a condition of them taking the throne which they agreed to. Once they had formed a parliament they decided they should put the Declaration of rights onto the statute books which they did with the Bill of rights. If u read it, there’s some text at the beginning and then it is pretty much a word for word copy of the Declaration of rights. The coronation oath act was also passed at that time putting further restraint on the monarch who is there under contract to the people, to govern us according to the common law. Parliament swears allegiance and is beneath the monarch, who is in turn beneath the people as evidenced by the British constitution (yes we have one but the law society don’t want u to know that).
How do you know what happened? Were you there?
Your handwriting is really good. I was punished by the nuns insufficiently apparently.
When I was nineteen, many decades ago, I had a series of dreams. One was the word "Philosophy" written over a pretty girls face and roses in her hair. Another dream was the words "nothing is possible without existential reference". I'm still working out the meaning because there is more than one way to read the words.
This is a wonderful summary of his contribution to world… Is it allowed to share this on social media?
Yes of course, glad you enjoyed it
@@UniversityofShed oh I love it… In 90s I read several books to learn these.. this is a great work….. Thanks and Tc..
The mind means the Mind is a "Tablua rasa" is a Tabla Raza (blank slate) = a PIzarrón en Blanco, which means that as the years pass, the experience begins to incorporate data from the Reality, the Sensible world. But I can still see that this Idea is not even Locke's, it is Aristoteles because he was the first to separate the Real World from the Ideas, and that Locke was only making the Definition or Aristoteles' Concept of Reality more sophisticated. . Aristoteles was ahead more than 1000 years in Time before Locke
''...all the day-labourers and tradesmen,
...and dairy-maids
...as to have them perfect in ethics this way. Hearing
plain commands, is the sure and only course to bring
them to obedience and practice. The greatest part can
not know, and therefore they must believe.'' - John Locke in The reasonableness of Christianity (1695)
Locke also defended that people (or perhaps he means soldiers) could be enslaved in war. I don't agree with this and neither with what you have quoted. But I think his take on the social contract is brilliant and his words and ideas against tyranny and for the rule of law are one of the cornerstones of our modern societies. :)
"belief cannot be coerced by violence"
Most beliefs are coerced by violence. People don't choose to believe 2 + 2 = 4, they are forced to believe it by the nature of the world as it appears to them.
2 pies + 2 pies is 4 pies
Human nature tends to observe symmetry with a welcoming eye, and all the more welcomed if it’s grandma’s home baked apple pie. The mathematical economy of supper is adorned at times by the interest of enough desert for all.
Hello! This video was very helpful for my short writing. It would be nice to see a video on Hobbes too!
The mind significa la Mente is a "Tablua rasa" es una Tabla Raza (blank slate)= a un PIzarrón en Blanco, lo que quiere decir es que a medida que pasan los años, la experiencia comienza a incorporar datos de la Realidad, del mundo Sensible. Pero igualmente puedo ver que esta Idea incluso no es de Locke, es de Aristoteles, porque el fue el primero en separar el Mundo Real del Mundo de la Ideas, y que Locke solamente fue haciendo mas sofisticada la Definicón o el Concepto de Realidad de Aristoteles. Aristoteles estaba adelantado mas de 1000 años en el Tiempo antes que Locke
thanks a lot ...i finished my history homework in 20 min
This helped so much
I agree with the title!!👍
Locke was brilliant for sure. But I can only forgive the blank slate idea because he didn't know any better. Back then people didn't even know the link between thought, behavior, personality and the brain.
+The Goodly Dragon We're certainly born with some innate "ideas," if you want to call them that. If you're high up, be afraid because you might die. If something big is about to attack you, be afraid because you can get hurt. Women who look a certain way are beautiful [though you may not know why unless you add the knowledge of evolution on, the idea that some people look sexy and others don't is innate].
A baby does not know to be afraid of heights or violence from a larger threat; are these ideas still innate? Also, I don't think instinct = innate ideas.
Zeek Yes! A baby still has a developing brain. No matter what your culture is, these ideas will occur to you because they are already programmed into your brain, hence you are not a blank slate. For instance, I remember first getting horny at around eight years old. The idea of sex occurred to me even though it had never been taught.
If the idea is not present, or depends on the development of rational capacity to be realized, it can be argued that it is not innate because we cannot decisively judge another personal rational capacity (and they could disagree). Also, as I mentioned before, I don't think instinct equates to innate ideas; you being horny as a child is instinct. Ideas are distinct concepts; you hardly have a distinct concept of sexuality as a child, though you experience arousal. If anything, it seems that instinct provides the impetus for ideas (like sexuality), which were not yet realized.
The only innate ideas a infant has is "mo" or more. Ideas are different from the carnal forces that govern the body.
Making a 5 page google slide on this guy that’s due in 20 minutes wish me luck
So was John Locke a socialist? What do you guys think his political views in terms of government
He is considered a liberal. In his Second Treatise of Government he offers an explanation of the origin of private property but he doesn't give it an absolute value as far as I can see, because he argues that when one takes through his work what he needs from Nature, he must leave as much and as good for others. Also, he is considered a liberal because he sees the purpose of government being to preserve the life, libery and property of people and he is opposed to authoritarianism.
@@yavor05 I think the term "liberal" in the modern day is different form the definition Locke used.
In our modern climate he would probably more center right, with a good lean towards libertarian. He would reject the big government, and identity politics of socialism. As the goal was a smaller government to maintain the rights of it's people and if they got to big the people were obligated to overthrow the government. But he would not be too far right, as he still respected tolerance of opposing ideas, as long as the worked well at maintaining a peaceful society where people were able to exercise their natural rights. Usually ultra conservative mind sets want to preserve their way of life, so they tend to be less tolerant of ideas that do not fit that mindset.
Proto-Socialist ideas did not really become a goal of political philosophy until the late 1700's some 80 years or so after Locke's death, and they really did not become socialism until Marx really refined them in the mid 1800's. Most liberals before Marx tended to be more about laissez-faire Capitalist systems, where the government should take a limited role into business.
Some of his ideas of human rights, and tolerance of those different than yourself can be seen in the ideas of modern liberalism...but there is a lot of hypocrisy there anymore. I'd say 20 or 30 years ago, at least in the US, the Democrats were more his version of classical liberal....back when the Democratic Party was the champion of free speech, and were more tolerant of new and often opposing ideas. But intolerance and the hatred of things like "Hate Speech" or "misinformation," would stand against Locke's ideas of reason, tolerance of those with different ideas. He would abhor the political violence of groups like Antifa and such as well as they seem to be lashing out towards the community and society as a whole. Ironically, he might be more in favor of January 6th, as that was a direct assault on a government the protestors felt no longer represented them.
Of course, it is always hard to be 100% sure how people would really react when they saw and lived in our would...but I think this is an accurate stance he would have is he stuck to his ideas, and philosophy of the time he was alive, and then applied them to our would.
what does john lockes "improvement of understanding is for two ends: first our own increase of knowledge; secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others”. means?
This means not only do you acquire knowledge for your yourself but also pass on the knowledge because perhaps there will be people who will need your guidance in understanding it to or your mentorship
@@atsweiadjei1181 you can also think about it evolutionary like the lions hunting strategy is perceived and copied by its young and its young's young therefore passing the knowledge down
Great
‘’...the first explicit formulation of Empiricism was by the British philosopher John Locke in the late 17th Century. Locke argued in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" of 1690 that the mind is a tabula rasa on which experiences leave their marks, and therefore denied that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience. However, he also held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone.’’ (www.philosophybasics.com)
That Locke ‘believed’ that knowledge of a god was innate, totally voids anything else he had to say regarding ‘tabla rasa’. The only thing which is not tabla rasa is the genius, and more, capabilities of the intelligence an individual receives at the moment of their creation.
That genius, and more, capability of intelligence would lead an individual to discern the difference between data which only masquerades as truthful knowledge, from data which is truthful knowledge, therefore it would lead the rigorously reasoning individual to a conclusion that a god has never been extant in reality, but only between the ears of ‘believers’, who have yet to promote a verifiable, repeatable proof of a god’s existence.
That Locke purported ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period.
Thanks
Can you help me to answer this
"positive thoughts about john locke philosophy in self"
Locke as father of political philosophy and Montesquieu father of political science.
It does not pronounce Kant as Can't. smh!
Of course the law could never be the tyranny.
Nigga what was locked major ideas
Two Tier Keir #TwoTierJustice
Tabula rasa. Mispelt
ronnerizvi Mispelt misspelt
Lol Karma
Wait, is his nose pointed downwards or upwards 😅
John Locke is basically slime but a person.
I just dropped two songs EQUALITY and THE WORLD IS ON FIRE
Well, he was correct about atheism.
Am doing law and I need help
Y
Yoooo
he didn't like absolutism
Kinda yellow
And he was right about atheism