John Locke. A Famous English Philosopher. Sample Essay

John Locke was an English philosopher from the 17th century he was born August 29 , 1632 and passed away on October 28 , 1704. During his time he accomplished many things one of them was becoming the leader of a political group known as the Whigs. Besides that Locke had a good education which would later help him on. He studied from 1652 to 1667 he centralized himself into logic and metaphysics. Locke played a huge role in theology , economics , and education he was the one who introduced us to schools. Two of his main philosophies that are still used today in day are Separation of Power and the Empirical Theory of Knowledge. Have you ever wonder why there’s three branches of power in our government ? Separation of Power is the reason that was introduced by Locke.

This philosophy brought the idea that if you split power into three separate chambers with their own duty and importance society will work better. Not only would society work better but neither of the compartments will gain more power than the other and they will keep an eye on each other so none of them would break the rules. Not only this but they have the ability to help each other out. As a result of the separation of power we got introduced to The Legislative , Judicial , and Executive branch. These branches help our government have a better function and so things can urn faster and better. Each branch has its own obligation and power so it is not fought for. This philosophy is not only applied to the government but it can even be applied to school. For example , student council power is divided.

They have a president a vice president and a secretary power is broken down into three people so they can function better and help each other out. When we are born our brains are a white room with nothing no ideas no knowledge nothing. People slowly put things inside the in other words that they fill up your mind with ideas. This philosophy is called an Empirical Theory of Knowledge. The ideas that are placed into our brains come from what people tell you and the amount of things you have participated. This idea was opened up by Locke he said that you only have an opinion on something based on what people tell you or what you have experienced in life. But since you can’t experience everything you make a bias based on what others have told you , knowledge is composed from ideas other have brought to you. We don’t always get the point of what people express to us but applying our five sense to it gives us the chance to feel a stronger bond with the idea.

This philosophy contribute to the theology that what is right to me can be wrong to you. An Empirical Theory of Knowledge is used today in American Society an example would be presidents. Donald Trump is a person that many people have strong bias about. Some people might tell you that he is a great person and that he does the best for his people and protects them as he is supposed to do. But there’s is people who will disagree with that and tell you that all he does is harm people who have done nothing to him. This is an example of what’s wrong to you can be right to me people have made their opinions about Trump based on what they have heard and seen. Their idea about him was build up based on things they read or watched on television. To demonstrate another point I’ve been to Mexico I can tell you that it is so much fun and that you can do many things and there is freedom. But someone has has not gone can tell you that it is a dangerous place because of all the drug dealing that happens and kidnapping so they would think i’m lying about the freedom. They will take into consideration what I told them and make their idea about Mexico. All of these ethics were disposed by John Locke without him Separation of power would not exist nor the Theory of Knowledge. Power would probably just be given to one person and everything would turn into chaos and it would make it harder for the society to run in a superior manner.

John Locke Was An English Philosopher Who Had Many Ideas About Government.

“All mankind… being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” John Locke was an English philosopher who had many ideas about government. He had three main ideas about what would happen without government, the purpose of government, and what purposes the government might have that Locke didn’t mention.

What did Locke think would happen without government?

John Locke believed the United States required a government. However, there were also many things he thought would happen without government. To understand these, you have to understand what happens in a state of nature. It would be like a world without protection. It would also be a world where no-one’s natural rights would be safe. These rights are life, liberty, and property. Many people would fight to protect these rights. If you were wondering whether there is a current place state of nature exists, there is none. A current movie that has somewhat shows a state of nature would be the movie “The Purge.” It shows a place where there is no laws, government, or emergency services such as the police, EMTs and et cetera. “The Purge” takes place in 2022, where “The New Founding Fathers” have developed The Purge and have all criminal activity legal for a twelve hour period from 7 pm to 7 am. Weapons are allowed up to a “Class 4,” meaning WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) are not allowed. The movies show that it isn’t safe at all because there is no protection.

What did Locke believe to be the purpose of government?

The purpose of government that Locke believe is to protect the people natural rights. Natural rights are life, liberty, property, and you get these rights by just being a human being. The government can’t take away your rights until you have broken a law. The government would enforce a law on people that try to break it. If there was no more government than it would break out into chaos and madness

I do, however, think that there may have been some purposes for the government that was not mentioned. For example, I thought that the government c8 was to keep the nation from going into a state of nature. Without them doing this, the nation would result in chaos. I also found that “consent” meant that there would be no legitimate government and be giving nobody the right to govern one person over another. If Locke wasn’t going to conform to the law or to the rules then they could do whatever they wish to do without commandment. If they did whatever they wanted, then a lot of bad things would occur and people would be hurt and some would even be killed. Along what we found is the natural rights. Locke believed that natural rights meant life, liberty, and property. In F.E.E.(Foundation for Economic Education) it states, “ He insisted that when a government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.” We found a court case on government limiting

John Locke And Secondary Qualities

John Locke presents the idea that objects in this world have a primary and secondary quality.

Primary qualities: Primary quality is what the naked eye sees and observes at first glance, not relying on subjective judgments, they exist independently. Locke gives the example of olives, if olive is round in shape there is no reason to define that olive as a different shape say square.

Secondary Qualities: Secondary qualities evoke sensations in our head with respect to the object. For example, cilantro and olive do not feel or smell the same way. Secondary qualities are learned by an individual as he goes through life. Knowledge acquired through secondary qualities does not provide with objective facts about the object.

John Loke’s argument suggests that while everyone identifies and feels the olive in the same way, in that case, everyone has the same primary reaction to objects regardless of their own opinion or past encounters with the object. But for individuals who do not like to eat olives will have a different secondary response to olives and they will choose not to eat it, describing their secondary qualities. The main difference between these two qualities is that the primary qualities of objects evokes ideas that resemble certain actions with objects. Our ability to identify and react does the rest, that’s why it is hard to make this claim.

James on Problem Solving

Without addressing the doubts, Locke looks to describe reasoning is means end. Harish’s example of balancing a checkbook; one adds up, subtracts, etc. for example when we are multiplying, we voluntarily carry over the numbers to the left. This voluntary action of carrying numbers can be associated with means-ends reasoning as we automatically wait for the number left over to pop up and carry it over. Or is it described as a means of reasoning and not ends, means referring to the arithmetic not problem-solving. The issue is the categorization of problem-solving, Locke’s argument holds more substance as he talks about the brain working on its own and we are at the brain’s mercy. It is more reasonable to believe that Locke has a more strong argument. With the current generation still unable to figure out the brain to its full potential. Humans still have diseases like dementia, that consistently makes me think that genetics and upbringing have a major role in a person life as it shapes their brain to make decisions and act on them. No one is born to dislike olives or cilantro we ourselves make those decisions through learning and adapting to our environment. Hence I agree with John Locke when he says we are at the brains mercy, as our brain is merely a device that we use as a medium to make decisions and how we wire our brain is up to us.

Seriously? My brain is a computer?!

Supporting either argument would be supporting an old belief that now rests on a slope slipping towards “the future”. The argument supporting that computers cannot have robust subjective conscious experiences is only true based on the knowledge that we all publicly have thus made it only true for the time being. Due to the technological advances in AI today, this statement sounding so much like a sci-fi story could be true in the near future. For one to simply say “our brains aren’t like computers because computers can’t experience emotions” would be too “here or there” when the topic itself is neither anymore. I don’t think that this is a good argument due to the number of similarities they have with each other. To completely write off the confounding amount of parallelism in the functionality of each because of one missing aspect that is unique to the living wouldn’t be just. Computers were invented to “think” and solve problems more efficiently than we do as groups but they do so base off of code written by the living and feeling. We were unable to add an artificially emotional aspect to what we were creating at that time and even if we were able to, it would have been left out. I say this because we were creating a strictly obedient machine with one function, to do without question or hesitation. Vice versa, humans are meant to feel, create and efficiently solve problems in order to survive but we don’t have just one function. So, to say that both are similar in many but not all ways and have many increasing indistinguishable traits would be far more accurate than simply taking a side.