John Locke :: Empiricists, Empiricism

John Lockes, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his " cursory Reflections upon a carry Calld, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norriss criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norriss argument against the tail of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnstons "Lockes Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Lockes replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjecti ve analysis of Lockes stance in relation to Norriss criticisms of the Essay. This publisher provides those facts, revealing the philosophicalnot personalimpetus for Lockes replies.INTRODUCTION"Lockes Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), by Charlotte Johnston,1 connects John Lockes posthumously published treatise on the philosophy of Nicolas Malebranche to the replies he had written to an English philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton. When Locke first published An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690),2 Norris, aided by the philosophy of Malebranche, responded with the first critique of the Essay, entitled "Cursory Reflections upon a Book calld, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to Norriss Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690).3 Three texts "JL to Mr. Norris" (1692), An Examination of P. Malebranches Opinion of Seeing All Things in divinity fudge (1693),4 and several(prenominal ) Remarks Upon Some of Mr. Norriss Books, wherein he asserts P. Malebranches Opinion of our Seeing all Things in God (1693),5 according to Johnston, were all a direct response to Norris.Johnstons essay, which has been widely accepted, clearly shows the interrelation of the texts however, her appraisal of them as a response to Norris, incorrectly devalues their philosophical seriousness by overestimating the importance of a personal quarrel between Norris and Locke. She concludes her essay with this amount of money "the stimulus for these three papers came directly from Norris, from his criticisms of the newly published Essay, and still more from his personal relationship with Locke" otherwise, "Lockes opposition to the theory of vision in God would surely have remained unexpressed, since he felt the notion to be sufficiently absurd to die of its own accord.