Locke: Dualism

Draft for Wolfe and Symons (ed.), History and Philosophy of Materialism. This chapter looks at the discussion of materialism in John Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding, and then at parts of the Anglophone reaction to those discussions. It considers the early criticisms of Locke by Edward Stillingfleet and the anonymous author of three sets of Remarks on Locke’s Essay. It then looks at some other ways in which readers reacted to Locke’s discussions: the views of Anthony Collins and John Toland, (...) which one might be tempted to think of as Lockean materialism; William Carroll’s reading of Locke as a Spinozistic materialist; and the dualistic Lockeanism of William Duncan’s Lockean logic textbook. (shrink)

Stewart Duncan’s excellent book Materialism from Hobbes to Locke offers an insightful study of the debates concerning materialism during the seventeenth century. When we hear the expression ‘materialism’, we often associate with it the question of whether the human mind is an entirely material entity. Although the question of whether the human mind is material plays an important role throughout the seventeenth-century debates examined in this book, Duncan offers a broader understanding of materialism that is not restricted to the human (...) mind. According to Duncan, materialism is ‘a view about some object or a group of objects. Often that object is the human mind’ (2), but materialism can also concern other objects such as animal minds or God. This leads Duncan to introduce materialism as ‘the view that the thing in question is wholly material, and has no immaterial part’ (2). He deliberately leaves open what it means to be material, because different philosophers featured in his book disagree about this question. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that Locke is a substance dualist in the general sense, in that he holds that there are, independent of our classificatory schema, two distinct kinds of substances: wholly material ones and wholly immaterial ones. On Locke’s view, the difference between the two lies in whether they are solid or not, thereby differentiating him from Descartes. My way of establishing Locke as a general substance dualist is to be as minimally committal as possible at the (...) outset, especially with respect to the classic debates on Locke’s positions in this domain, including those concerning substrata, real essences, and the like. Nonetheless, I show that minimal commitments about Locke’s primary/secondary quality distinction are sufficient to derive some substantive conclusions about his positions on these issues, as well as that he is a general substance dualist. (shrink)

Are human beings purely material creatures, or is there something else to them, an immaterial part that does some (or all) of the thinking, and might even be able to outlive the death of the body? This book is about how a series of seventeenth-century philosophers tried to answer that question. It begins by looking at the views of Thomas Hobbes, who developed a thoroughly materialist account of the human mind, and later of God as well.

john locke argues that personal identity consists in sameness of consciousness, and he maintains that any other theory of personal identity would lead to "great Absurdities".1 This statement intimates that Locke thought carefully about alternative conceptions of personal identity and their problems. In this paper, I argue that, by understanding Locke's account of personal identity in the context of metaphysical and religious debates of his time, especially debates concerning the afterlife and the state of the soul between death and resurrection, (...) we can reveal the strengths of his view and show how his account of personal identity in terms of sameness of consciousness has the resources to avoid... (shrink)

Nicholas Jolley shows that the mind-body problem and the nature of personal immortality are more central to Locke's philosophy than has been realized. He argues that Locke takes up unorthodox positions in both cases, and holds that Locke's criticisms of Descartes were controversial responses to challenging metaphysical and theological issues.

« Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée. » Il n’est pas rare de voir dans l’incipit du Discours de la méthode un de ces énoncés cartésiens qui, par leur simplicité et leur transparence, marquèrent une rupture avec la technicité de la philosophie scolastique des siècles précédents. Pourtant, à se pencher sur les commentaires qui ont été produits de ce texte, dès sa publication, il apparaît que pour un certain nombre de contemporains de Descartes, il y (...) avait là une référence à la théorie dite de l’intensio et remissio formarum – ou latitude des formes – qui, de Pierre Lombard à Nicolas d’Oresme en passant par Richard de Middleton, fit l’objet de discussions soutenues pendant plus de six siècles. Cette théorie énonce que seules les qualités accidentelles sont susceptibles de variations intensives dans une substance, contrairement aux propriétés essentielles qui, elles, sont invariables. L’énoncé de Descartes, aux atours de simple proverbe, cacherait en réalité un tour de force argumentatif : tenant pour acquis que la pensée constitue l’attribut essentiel de l’âme, Descartes mobiliserait la théorie de l’intensio et remissio formarum pour affirmer qu’en chaque âme, cette pensée n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins. Il devient alors possible de définir certaines opérations épistémiques élémentaires qui s’observent à part égale en chacun de nous, et ne sont pas soumises à la variabilité des compétences individuelles.Mais ce point d’interprétation du texte de Descartes ne conserverait qu’un intérêt herméneutique s’il ne trouvait, outre-Manche et quelques dizaines d’années plus tard, un remarquable rebondissement : En 1690, John Locke, dans L’Essai sur l’entendement humain, identifie parfaitement la référence médiévale sous-jacente à cet énoncé canonique du cartésianisme, et la discute avec la plus grande rigueur. En indexant la pensée sur l’attention, et en remarquant que cette attention est susceptible de variations d’intensités au cours du temps, Locke en vient à se demander s’il ne faut pas renoncer au postulat cartésien selon lequel la pensée constituerait l’essence de l’âme, et lui préférer l’hypothèse selon laquelle cette pensée ne serait pour l’âme qu’une activité. (shrink)

This paper considers a seventeenth century argument for (substance) dualism propounded by Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth that appeals to the nature of secondary qualities or sensations. I argue that, despite the widespread acceptance of the primary/secondary quality distinction, this argument is relatively unique for its time since seventeenth century arguments for dualism generally appeal, not to sensory qualities, but to thought, language, rationality, and volition. Indeed, for many, sensations are the most embodied of mental phenomena. I draw points of comparison (...) and contrast between this argument, and nineteenth and twentieth century qualia-based arguments for (property) dualism. Finally, although such an argument might reasonably be called a “Lockean argument for substance dualism,” given Locke’s influential popularization of the primary-secondary quality distinction, I argue that it is not, in fact, an argument to which Locke would subscribe. (shrink)

The wide range of conflicting interpretations that exist in regard to Locke's philosophy of mind and body (i.e. dualistic, materialist, idealistic) can be explained by the general failure of commentators to appreciate the full extent of his nominalism. Although his nominalism that focuses on specific natural kinds has been much discussed, his mind-body nominalism remains largely neglected. This neglect, I shall argue, has given rise to the current diversity of interpretations. This paper offers a solution to this interpretative puzzle, and (...) it attributes a view to Locke that I shall describe as nominal symmetry. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Locke is not in fact agnostic about the ultimate nature of the mind. In particular, he produces an argument, much like Jaegwon Kim's exclusion argument, to show that any materialist view that takes mental states to supervene on physical states is committed to epiphenomenalism. This result helps illuminate Locke's otherwise puzzling notion of 'superaddition.'.

This paper traces the connections between the assertion or denial of innate ideas, and the possibility of the soul being immortal, in the contrasting cases of Descartes and Locke. Descartes and Locke disagree about whether there are innate ideas and the nature of the soul, but they agree that the soul is immortal. The issue explored is which theory of the mind, Descartes's or Locke's, is in the best position to contend that we to survive death, and indeed exist immortally. (...) The argument is not as straightforwardly in Descartes's favor, as one might suppose. (shrink)

The word ‘dualism’ can be used to pick out at least four different theories concerning the relationship between mind and body. A mind and a body are two different entities and each is “had” by a man. A man is thus a composite being with two components, one “inner”, the other “outer”. You, for example, are a man and your mind is “inner” in the sense that you alone can reflectively experience yourself thinking, or feeling pain, or seeing colours . (...) I can in a sense observe you thinking, but only by observing you use your body in certain ways—e.g. to make certain sounds, write certain things, look at the pages of an open book and frown. My “experience” of you thinking is thus not a reflective experience. Your body is “outer”, on the other hand, in the sense that you cannot experience it or its properties in any exclusive way. That is, in whatever sense you can be said to experience your body, someone else can equally be said to experience it. (shrink)