Graduate studies at Western
Locke Studies 10 (27):27-59 (2010)
|Abstract||Locke’s conception of substance in general or substratum has two relatively widespread interpretations. According to one, substance in general is the bearer of properties, a pure subject, something which sustains properties but itself has no properties. I will call this interpretation traditional, because it has already been formulated by Leibniz. According to the other interpretation, substance is general is something like real essence: an underlying structure which is responsible for the fact that certain observable properties form stable, recurrent clusters. I will argue that both interpretation are partly right, and what is good in them can be reconciled. The traditional interpretation captures the purpose and signficanc of the idea of substance in general, i.e. the reason why Locke says we have this idea. The real essence view is right about the real world counterpart of the idea, i.e. what sort of entity the idea corresponds to. The paper starts with a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the rival interpretations (I, II). Then I examine which part of the traditional interpretation can be sustained in light of the problems it faces (III). Thereafter I will show that the part of the traditional interpretation which can be sustained cannot stand on its own and needs to be supplemented at one point, and the real essence view can provide what is needed. This, as it were, mixed interpretation will be supported by sketching an argument which is plausible within the context of Locke’s teachings and which explains how Locke could have arrived from the view which the traditional interpretation correctly attributes to him to the view which the real essence interpretation takes him to espouse (IV). The two problematic points in this argument will be taken up in the following two sections. (V, VI). Finally, I will provide some evidence from the Drafts for Locke’s identification of substance and essence (VII).|
|Keywords||Locke substance real essence substratum natural kind|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gábor Forrai (2010). Locke on Substance in General. Locke Studies 10:27-59.
Michael Jacovides (2007). Locke on the Propria of Body. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (3):485 – 511.
Daniel Z. Korman (2010). Locke on Substratum: A Deflationary Interpretation. Locke Studies 10:61-84.
Maurilio Lovatti (2004). General Ideas and the Knowability of Essence: Interpretations of Locke's Theory of Knowledge. Dissertation, Oxford, Tercentenary John Locke Conference (April 2-4, 2004)
Dan Kaufman (2007). Locke on Individuation and the Corpuscular Basis of Kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (3):499-534.
Lionel Shapiro (1999). Toward 'Perfect Collections of Properties': Locke on the Constitution of Substantial Sorts. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29 (4):551-593.
Jennifer Mensch (2010). Material Unity and Natural Organism in Locke. Idealistic Studies 40 (1/2):147-162.
Jan-Erik Jones, Real Essence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jan-Erik Jones (2007). Locke Vs. Boyle: The Real Essence of Corpuscular Species. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (4):659 – 684.
E. J. Lowe (2011). Locke on Real Essence and Water as a Natural Kind: A Qualified Defence. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85 (1):1-19.
Gabor -Forrai (2005). Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents. In Gabor Forrai George Kampis (ed.), Intentionality: Past and Future.
Added to index2011-01-21
Total downloads52 ( #23,812 of 739,353 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #7,991 of 739,353 )
How can I increase my downloads?