[.ca] Locke in 90 Minutes (ISBN 1566632625)

From Amazon.com:
In this addition to his popular series of miniature introductions to the great philosophers, Paul Strathern takes on John Locke, one of the first major empiricists. As always, Strathern does an excellent job of putting the philosopher and his work into historical context: Locke in 90 Minutes is particularly strong on showing how the turbulence of English politics during the mid-1600s set Locke on the road to philosophy and shaped his ideas on democracy. He provides clear summaries that demonstrate how Locke's empiricism was informed by the scientific spirit of the times as well as the more metaphysical ruminations of Descartes (though he would veer very sharply from the conclusions of his French near-contemporary). And there are several examples of Strathern's caustic wit, as in his description of Locke's long epistolary relationships with women as "a sort of Chinese water torture by correspondence."

why bother?:
I found this book to be essentially useless. It presented a brief, boring biography of Locke with little attention to his world altering theories. Waste of time.

Strathern could have done better.:
I think Paul Strathern is brilliant. He must have looked at the way the "...for Dummies" series has a standard format and done something similar. I was more impressed with his treatment of Confucius. In both this book on Locke and the one on Confucius he gives us 50 pp. of content in two sections: "Subject's Life and Works" and "Afterword". But in the book on Locke, Strathern spent too many words poking fun at Locke and calling him boring. He also spent much more effort in describing the life and times of Locke than his philosophy. I think Strathern must find Locke too boring to spend much time discussing his contributions. "From Socrates to Sarte: the Philosophic Quest" by T.Z.Lavine gives four chapters to Hume and a handful of pages to Locke. "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant doesn't give a full chapter to either Hume or Locke, merely including them within the context of philosophers whom Durant considers greater. So at least Strathern has given more individual focus to Locke than other writers popularizing philosophy. Strathern also, as part of his format in this 90 Minutes series, gives representative quotes from Locke's work. This is a very nice touch and I recommend the book for this reason. You can see that reading Locke is like reading the King James version of the Bible: "Huh? What did he say?" This is a decent book, but I did feel a bit let down while reading it, which is why I give it 3 instead of 4 stars. Also, the other reviewer made comments saying that Locke's philosophy of government depends on the inate goodness of people. That is only that reviewer's opinion. That did not come across at all in this presentation of Locke's work.

John Locke: His life and his philosophy, served fast:
This book sets as its goal to communicate the life and work of John Locke in 90 minutes. For me, the book succeeded in this; I read it in about an hour and then went back over some parts to review in more depth. John Locke (1632-1704) was an important philosopher; he laid the groundwork for liberal democracy and he was also the founder of empiricism. Strathern spends most of the book describing different events in Locke's life and for non-specialist, this is probably a good approach. Strathern does a fairly good job of putting Locke in his historical context; grew up during the English Civil War, and then lived through Oliver Cromwell's rule and then the Restoration of the Monarchy; one of the more turbulent periods in English history, no doubt. I think Paul Strathern is a British writer and this comes through in his writing. Strathern is fond is saying that Locke's philosophy was "common sense." However, empiricism (The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge) is not really self-evident and wholly obvious. Locke also presumed that when one is born, one is a tabula rasa (The mind before it receives the impressions gained from experience. The unformed, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke.) or a blank slate. I think that everybody has some innate ideas (things that you just know apart from experience). On occasion, it appears that Locke is a materialist (materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena) but this is incompatible with his philosophy. Surely, empiricism is a non-physical thing; how much does empiricism weigh? What is its volume? It is non-physical. As a philosophy of epistemology (The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity), I think empiricism is seriously flawed. Locke's political thought probably had more impact on the world than his epistemology. Locke believed there is a natural law that gives people certain rights; for example the right to life or the right to liberty. However, because people keep stepping on other people's rights, it is necessary to form some sort of social contract (i.e like the American Constitution). Locke also held that certain rights are inherent and that if a government should act to violate those rights, then the people are justified in starting a revolution against those in power. Locke believed that Government had no legitimacy except the consent of the people (near the end of the 1700's, this would result in a paradigm shift from the Divine Right of Kings, to a Government by the People). One the most interesting passages (I don't agree with his evaluation of Kant thought) describes several centuries of European philosophy: "Without Descartes there might have been no modern philosophy. But it was Locke who fathered the main line of development - the British Empiricists, who then provoked Kant to produce the greatest philosophical system of all, which in turn gave rise to the elephantine folly of Hegel, and the consequent disbelief in all systems by anyone except Marxists and optimistic punters." (page 49) One of the interesting legacies of Locke may be his contribution to scientism (The belief that only science provides true knowledge or only that which can be proved by science is true). He makes a distinction between primary qualities of an object, which are quantifiable (e.g. mass or volume) and he said these are in the objects. Then there are secondary qualities, and these are qualitative (e.g. colour or smell) do not have the same connection to the object. In some sense, secondary qualities are mental constructs, in Locke's view. It is easy to see how a belief that quantitative properties are the only real things that can be known (i.e. if science can't measure it, it doesn't exist.) has major repercussions. The other problem I have with Locke relates to his understanding of language and how that language can describe objects. Strathern says, "Locke had rejected the Aristotelian notion whereby the words with which we classify things correspond to the 'real essence' of things." (page 47) The impact of this is that if two people see an object they cannot discover a common essence but both can come up with ideas that are mental constructs. I think this may have contributed to the moral relativism that is now so so pervasive in North America. On the format of the book, about 60% covers Locke's life and works; that is 48 pages. Then there is a short Afterword, followed by a 10 page section which quotes from Locke's two major works, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," (on epistemology) and, "Two Treatises of Government," (on political philosophy; attacks the Divine Right of Kings and argues for liberal democracy). Then there are two chronologies; one of the history of Western philosophy (it is interesting to note who comes before and after Locke) and then there is a chronology of Locke's life. There are several problems with Locke's thought, however I will look at two here. In describing the point at which everyone has his or her rights and all is well, I think this shows a view that humanity is basically good. However, if you examine the history of the world, yourself or the Bible, you find that this is simply not the case. It is dangerous to build a government with the assumption that people are basically good. On his political philosophy, I don't know if it is wise to wholly place the legitimacy of government in the consent of the people. There must be a higher authority beyond man, immutable and good, on which government can be measured against (e.g. in South Africa, apartheid was legal and authorized by the government however only by appeal to a transcendent law that demands equality could this be overthrown)