[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 471 KB, 984x1138, locke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14197327 No.14197327 [Reply] [Original]

Do people reading the early moderns really need to read Locke? I took an undergrad history class once that skipped Spinoza and Leibniz. Now that I know them better, I realize that Berkeley makes a really nice transition from Leibniz, and so you can read Descartes>Spinoza>Leibniz>Berkeley>Hume>Kant. But if you try to make Locke fit anywhere he ruins the flow. I mean is he even really that necessary? I'm talking about his empiricism not his politics, does it really add much? The most he does is say there are no innate ideas and that we have no ideas of physical or mental substance.

>> No.14197338

>>14197327
Locke was a dummy dumb, don't read him. In fact, you can just skip the Empiricists all together and you won't miss anything important.

>> No.14197343

>>14197327
People need to read DIderot

>> No.14197347

>>14197327
Look at his face, he obviously can't be trusted. Compare with the rotund magnanimity of Hume

>> No.14197351

>>14197338
>In fact, you can just skip the Empiricists all together
This is unreasonable, at least read Hume.

>> No.14197359

>>14197338
I really like old empiricism actually, just like I like speculative metaphysics. But Locke is the least empiricist of the empiricists. He's really not rocking the boat the way Berkeley and Hume are. At least Descartes has both the methodological skepticism and the weird metaphysics to make him interesting, while Spinoza and Leibniz are creatively speculative and I appreciate what they're doing.

>> No.14197556

>>14197359
They're great because they recognize that empiricism is first and foremost an epistemology and that epistemological ideas have metaphysical consequences. Today's "empiricism" hardly deserves the name

>> No.14197567

>>14197327
his political philosophy needs to be buried and forgotten after the revolution

>> No.14197583

Locke is garbage. Unfortunately he is actually important to understand amerikkkan "philosophy" (which is also shit).

>> No.14197619

>>14197583
>amerikkkan

>> No.14197752

>>14197338
this except don't skip hume. berkeley is cool too but I don't think of him as an empiricist.

>>14197347
>>14197351
based humebros

>>14197583
he's really not

>> No.14197819

>>14197347
Hume is the largest philosopher, and would be capable of eating all other philosophers if he so desired. With such a solid position at the top of the food chain, it's no wonder that he's the best of them.

>> No.14198269
File: 33 KB, 686x798, 1573880773185.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14198269

>>14197619
t.

>> No.14198296
File: 249 KB, 1400x840, idea_sized-176561172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14198296

>>14197819
what did hume mean by this:

On Sunday forenoon the 7 of July 1776, being too late for church, I went to see Mr David Hume, who was returned from London and Bath, just adying. He was lean, ghastly, and quite of an earthy appearance. He was dressed in a suit of grey cloth with white metal buttons, and a kind of scratch wig. He was quite different from the plump figure which he used to present. He had before him Dr. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric. He seemed to be placid and even cheerful. He said he was just approaching to his end. I think these were his words.

[…] I had a strong curiosity to be satisfied if he persisted in disbelieving a future state even when he had death before his eyes. I was persuaded from what he now said, and from his manner of saying it, that he did persist. I asked him if it was not possible that there might be a future state. He answered it was possible that a piece of coal put upon the fire would not burn; and he added that it was a most unreasonable fancy that we should exist for ever.

[…] I asked him if the thought of annihilation never gave him any uneasiness. He said not the least; no more than the thought that he had not been, as Lucretius observes.

[…] I however felt a degree of horror, mixed with a sort of wild, strange, hurrying recollection of my excellent mother's pious instructions, of Dr. Johnson's noble lessons, and of my religious sentiments and affections during the course of my life. I was like a man in sudden danger eagerly seeking his defensive arms; and I could not but be assailed by momentary doubts while I had actually before me a man of such strong abilities and extensive inquiry dying in the persuasion of being annihilated. But I maintained my faith.

>> No.14198362

>>14198296
he fears death no more than he fears the time before he existed

>> No.14198465

The problem with Anglo-Saxon culture is that it has never had a reckoning, a humiliating historical dealing of the cards. Every nation on this planet besides the Americans and the British have had numerous reckonings that deeply humbled their nation and I think this had an effect on their ability to produce great intellectual works.

>> No.14198515

>>14198465
England was so deeply cucked by Normans that the language is like a quarter French

>> No.14198623

>>14198515
sure, the landed anglo saxon nobility, but not the english nation as a whole

>> No.14198666

>>14197583
>underrating the americans
Pseud detected.

>> No.14198675

>>14198465
bruh our tribe name is literally hyphenated like we're a new york divorce lawyer

>> No.14199306

>>14198296
What an absolute chad.

>> No.14199612

>>14198269
>I'm thinking about you, but you're mad
Why are foreigners so transparent?

>> No.14201479

>>14198623
Damn dude, I don't think I can even see the goal post anymore.

>> No.14201556

>>14197327
My reading plan is the go
>Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz
Then
>Locke, Hume
Then
>Berkeley, Burke