Dividing Locke from God

Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (2):133-164 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A “recent consensus” has emerged in Locke studies that has sought to place theology at the center of Locke's political philosophy, insisting that the validity and cogency of Locke's political conclusions cannot be substantiated independently of the theology that resides at their foundation. This paper argues for the need to distance Locke from God, claiming that not only can we “bracket” the normative conclusions of Locke's political philosophy from their theological foundations, but that this was in fact Locke's own intention, intent as he was to justify these conclusions to a diverse political audience often divided by faith. In other words, this “recent consensus” in Locke studies is premised on an erroneous understanding of Locke's political philosophy, even as advanced by Locke himself. Locke's own philosophical discourse bears witness to the very “bracketing” of his political conclusions from their theological foundations that these Locke scholars claim is impossible.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-01-19

Downloads
48 (#322,994)

6 months
14 (#170,850)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Locke, toleration and natural law: A reassessment.John William Tate - 2017 - European Journal of Political Theory 16 (1).

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Letter Concerning Toleration.John Locke & James H. Tully (eds.) - 1963 - Hackett Publishing Company.
Introduction.James S. Fishkin & Peter Laslett - 2002 - Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2):125–128.
Response to Critics.Jeremy Waldron - 2005 - The Review of Politics 67 (3):495-513.
Locke: Religion: Equality.Michael P. Zuckert - 2005 - The Review of Politics 67 (3):419-431.

Add more references