Is John Locke Retarded?

[Anonymous No.17484468]

I was just reading this guy and he spent like a thousand more words than necessary refuting a brainlet argument for innate knowledge ("universal assent"). And he didn't even do a good job. I thought I better check with the learned netizens of /lit/ before I continue.

[Anonymous No.17484510]

>>17484468
>Early Modern Enlightenment philosopher
Anon... I will let you in on a secret... they are all retarded.

[Anonymous No.17484569]

>nose

[Anonymous No.17484575]

>>17484468
He is the founder of individual human rights so basically yes.

[Anonymous No.17484580]

>>17484468
He was right about Atheists, tho.

[Anonymous No.17484622]

>>17484575
Locke is based

[Anonymous No.17484653]

>>17484622
Locke is retard af anon...His work is so lazy and bad that I am actually surprised people believed him..

[Anonymous No.17484758]

>>17484653
Why did the founders speak so highly of him?

[Anonymous No.17484766]

>>17484758
The founding fathers were midwits.

[Anonymous No.17484768]

>>17484510
He's also an Anglo, that really compounds it

[Anonymous No.17484774]

[Anonymous No.17484779]

>>17484766
WHY DO YOU MOTHERFUCKERS HAVE TO BE SO CONTRARIAN ABOUT EVERYTHING???

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.17484783]

>>17484768
Yes, unfortunately England never recovered from the victory of the Roundheads.

[Anonymous No.17484821]

>>17484468
>if you use your labor power to transform natural resources into something useful it's your private property
>if anyone tries to take your private property from you it's ok to kill them since they're basically trying to subjugate you
>wage labor is cool though ?????

[Anonymous No.17484835]

>>17484758
Most didn't. John Adams hated him

[Anonymous No.17484844]

You can't refute natural rights.

[Anonymous No.17484850]

>>17484844
>rights are a spook
wow it was that simple

[Anonymous No.17484858]

>>17484758
Americans mythologize him because he was an enlightenment philosopher who justified their slave system (due to his vested interest in it).

[Anonymous No.17484937]

>>17484468
>John Schnoz
You're asking this question to a bunch of Marxists and Statists (i.e. half of the people on this board for some ungodly reason) so they will agree with the proposition if only because his philosophy was in favour of natural rights which they don't believe in because they are soulless bugmen.
These people don't value individualism and would rather be controlled by some faggot in an ivory tower.
The faggots on this board will also hate him because he is a brilliant Anglo and they seeth at Anglos for some reason (and in English at that!).
I reckon it's because we dominate philosophy and /lit/ and these ESL /lit/lets struggle to compensate, SAD!

[Anonymous No.17484958]

>>17484468
Yes, anon. People shill him since forever because he is a retard. That is some genius insight.

[Anonymous No.17485002]

>>17484510
Even Thomas Hobbes was retarded in his buying into the idea that every man is equal and is part of the social contract by consent - though he is based in the realm of pragmatic arguments for absolute monarchy.

[Anonymous No.17485010]

>>17484937
Your post is incoherent because everything about the Anglo tradition - egalitarianism, "empiricism", utilitarianism etc - is textbook bugmanship. In fact, this is precisely why people hate Anglos so much. You are correct that a lot of people have very poorly articulated views on individualism, but in their defence, so do liberals. Individual liberty can not be divorced from the environment you live in and when the "individual liberty" of vulture capitalists overrides the health of the entire community, you are dealing with tyranny, not freedom.

[Anonymous No.17485017]

>>17485002
>Even Thomas Hobbes was retarded in his buying into the idea that every man is equal and is part of the social contract by consent
This is pretty much just a horizontal, disintegrated version of the Great Chain of Being.

[Anonymous No.17485024]

Rawls solved the issue of natural rights with the Original Position.

[Anonymous No.17485663]

>>17485024
Even Locke is better than Rawls.
The "original position" is pure sophistry: "just presuppose my nonsensical anthropology and ethics, and then you get my already held conclusions on justice and political order".

[Anonymous No.17485703]

>>17485663
When I say sophistry, I mean it quite literally. Rawls is basically using the "natural man" of Antiphon, which, of course, "free from all customs", chooses whatever the sophist would: reduce his own suffering, enlarge his power, be "free", etc. This presupposes, rather than proves, what is good for man, both in and "out" of society, if that were possible; which is Plato's criticism of Glaucon's position in the beginning of the Republic.

[Anonymous No.17486249]

>>17484468
>Is the most influential philosopher in the Anglo-saxon world which re-shaped humanity in the last 300 years retarded?

No. you are.

[Anonymous No.17486330]

>>17484835
proof

[Anonymous No.17486634]

>>17485024
>Rawls
Literal bullshit that exists only to advance a political point isn't a philosophy of morality.

[Anonymous No.17487096]

>>17484468
>>17484510
straight up this anon is right. Locke's a muthafuckin' retard b. That dude sniffs bungholes for recreation.
All of the philosophers from around that time period had a dumbass approach to philososphizing. For them it was a regimented system adorned with privileges (I'd hate to use that word but back then it was true) But those early onset American weebs would take gigantic books worth of paper and fill it with a lot of stupid, unnecessary shit and made up concepts and words to say some basic shit that they believed the whole time. John Locke was definitely a diddler of anuses

[Anonymous No.17487520]

>>17484821
Are you pretending?

[Anonymous No.17488935]

>>17485703
>This presupposes, rather than proves, what is good for man
You clearly haven't read Rawls. His whole point is that we can't know what is good for man and that, if given the choice, most people would want a society that lets them pursue their own version of the good without being constrained by accidents of birth.

Don't talk about shit you haven't read.

[Anonymous No.17488966]

Locke's work was teleological, it was only written for the purpose of revolution.

[Anonymous No.17488971]

>We doth get our Ideas from Copyies of Impressions from ye Old Syght
Yeah

[Anonymous No.17489017]

>>17487096
>>17487096
>>17487096
>>17487096
>>>Reddit.com

[Anonymous No.17489036]

Imagine if the founding fathers of America based their nation on Hobbes instead of Locke, and then weep for what could have been.

[Anonymous No.17489163]

>>17489036
Hobbes was a pseud, lol.
The only reason he gets away with his sophistry to this day is because he did his most famous work in Philolsophy.
When he tried to do work in Mathematics (this faggot tried to square the circle, kek) this pseud was BTFO by John Wallis.
It also helps that you're a retard.

[Sage No.17489220]

>>17484468
Look at this size of that kotherfuckers nose... what the FUCK is his problem

[Anonymous No.17489225]

>>17484468
Philosophers didn’t have sparknotes and Wikipedia to look up the most effective arguments against positions back then, anon

[Anonymous No.17489530]

>>17484758
>Why did the founders speak so highly of him?

Because they were progressives and founded a country based on it.

[Anonymous No.17489537]

>>17484937
>would rather be controlled by some faggot in an ivory tower
Yes, the fact is that most people need virtue to be enforced on them otherwise we end up with billions of dollars going into the superbowl.

[Anonymous No.17489540]

>>17484858
Leftist cuck detected.

[Anonymous No.17489541]

>>17484783
St. Newman, Chesterton, and Belloc would beg to disagree.
But you're right in so far that the Roundhead victory was a disaster for Anglo kind.

[Anonymous No.17489545]

>>17488935
Sorry that you have problems reading two posts, maybe that's why you can't understand the problem with a thought experiment like Rawls', hiding his own anthropological, ethical and metaphysical presupposition behind "not being metaphysical, anthropological or ethical".
Why would men choose a society that let's them pursue "their own version of the good", if not because they already consider a sort of egalitarian freedom the highest good? "Most people" would want that only if they are already liberals, which is the whole point of the comment, not to mention the historical, methodological and anthropological critiques: it presupposes that man in the "original position" has already a liberal notion of the good, from which obviously follows what Rawls wanted. Just sophistry.

[Anonymous No.17489551]

>>17485010
Yet you don't live in north korea.

[Anonymous No.17489601]

>>17489545
>Why would men choose a society that let's them pursue "their own version of the good", if not because they already consider a sort of egalitarian freedom the highest good?
You're asking why, if given the choice, people would want to be free? This is a serious question? You are not joking?

[Anonymous No.17489677]

>>17489601
Yes. Why would they, and what would they understand as freedom anyways? I don't think freedom to "pursue your own version of the good" is what every philosopher, let alone every person, has considered freedom. That definition of freedom is presupposed.

[Anonymous No.17489999]

>>17484575
A popular meme but I can’t see a rational explanation for them desu

[Anonymous No.17490024]

>>17489163
You can square a circle...

[Anonymous No.17490187]

>>17489541
>St. Newman
No idea who that is.
>Chesterton
Unfortunately, a pseud.
>Belloc
Is that the guy with the anti-Semitic book that got posted about two days ago? I thought he was French.
>But you're right in so far that the Roundhead victory was a disaster for Anglo kind.
Daily reminder that the King, not parliament, is the rightful source of authority.
>>17489601
>You're asking why, if given the choice, people would want to be free? This is a serious question? You are not joking?
What if my idea of freedom comes packaged with economic equality? Better yet, what if it comes packaged with the idea of fidelity to a divinely appointed sovereign, through whom one is brought closer to God? Doesn't liberal ideology deny me this freedom?

[Anonymous No.17490237]

>>17489601
I mean in anon's defense, the majority of human civilizations have been egalitarian and collectivist. Human nature does seem to tend further towards a groupthink, non individualist (and thus non "free", in the NeoLiberal sense of the word) way of living.

[Anonymous No.17491635]

>>17490187
>No idea who that is.
That's because you're retarded
>A pseud
Prove it
>Anti-semitic
He's been accused of that, yes.
His father was French, and he was born in France.
However he was raised in England, spoke English, sat in the English Parliament, had a very English worldview.
>Rightful source of Authority
That would be the God, who grants temporal power to the King.