HCJ theory-John Locke

John Locke is an extraordinary person. Not just because he was known as the first ever empiricist, but for the events which happened during his life. Locke's life crosslinks many historic events which go down in famous history. For example, there was the British Civil War from 1641-1651, along with the dictatorship of Cromwell, The Exclusion Bill Crisis (1678-81), and also the installment of James II in 1685 as King, although it wasn't announced at first that he was Catholic. Furthermore, Locke's father had fought for the Parliamentary Army against the Royalists.

At the start of the lecture Brian (or as I call him, "The Workhorse" due to his footballing abilities) revealed his intentions to cover 'Social Contract' and 'Human Understanding'-both being linked to the reading on Locke. A social contract is an agreement between people and its ruler. The ruler is chosen, and given huge power, this power comes from the people in order to give it to the ruler, also known as the mortal God.

Locke's 'Treatise of Government' involves two ideas. The first treatise of Government attacks the concept of the 'Divine Rights of Kings'. The second stems from Locke's opposition of James II and Hobbes-is the state of nature where everyone enjoys natural freedom and equality but obey natural laws (The natural laws were moral laws which every man knew without thought-right and wrong). Brian also informed us of the manual for a revolution, which included Locke's proposition of a concept of government by consent and limited by laws-its powers mainly used for the protection of property. Locke insisted that taxes could not be levied without the people's consent, and he believed that citizens could rebel if their government refused to respect the laws of nature (this links to the tyranny of James II during his reign). This suggests that Locke felt we were entitled to the right of revolution, like it was one of the rights of men.
It raises an interesting question. Can we revolt? And if so, to what extent can we revolt? I believe that we can create some form of revolution to fight for the rights of the world, and to defeat the wrongs, but any revolution without sufficient evidence of tyranny and corruption should be a crime.

Human understanding is a complex issue and Locke believed that our understanding comes from our experience which is worked on by our powers of reason to produce 'real knowledge'. This is against the innate ideas of Plato and Descartes. Locke formulated that reason consists of 2 parts:

1. An inquiry into what we know with certainty
2. An investigation of propositions which it is wise to accept in practice, although they have only probability and not certainty in their favour.

Locke thought that God had given mankind the ability to discover knowledge and morality so that innate ideas were not needed. He also claimed that when matters of faith go beyond reason and experience-individuals should be guided by private revelation, but these revelations should never be imposed by the church or state.
Mr John Locke saw himself as a "humbler under-labour" who cleared the ground for scientists such as Newton. Newton was arguably the start of enlightened science after discovering the law of gravity, three laws of motion, infinitesimal calculus, and modern optics in the same time period when the plague was rampant during his university days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJnhRCzH90

The link provided is the story of Newton's inventions and discoveries. Worth watching as it adds further knowledge to what we already know regarding Newton and science.

G.M