Abstract

My goal in this paper is to answer two questions: what, if anything, did Locke have in mind when he spoke of substance in general? and did Locke affirm the existence of substance in general? Concerning the first of these, I argue that what Locke had in mind were bare particulars . In the first part of this paper, I show why this interpretation of Locke is preferable to its two main rivals. Concerning the second question, Locke was agnostic about the existence of substance in general. He may not have wished to deny its existence outright, but he certainly did not affirm it. This claim runs counter to most readings of Locke, and I defend it in the second half of the paper. This defense rests on an examination of Locke's view of the relationship between conceivability and possibility, an aspect of the debate that most commentators have overlooked