John Locke Scholarship

[Harald]

I've been reading some secondary litterature on Locke's political philosophy (I'm writing a thesis on Locke's Right to Life, Liberty and Property in the Second Treatise). Are there anyone here that is well versed in modern Locke sholarship? It would have been interesting to know your opinion on the scholars who are ripping Locke's theory of rights apart and destroying his reputation. I'm thinking about such scholars as MacPherson, Kendall, Strauss, Dunne, Ascraft -- to mention just a few. I've found a few authors worth reading that defends his rights theory (Vaughn, Rapazinski, Zuckert), but I wonder if there are anyone else out there that is worth reading on Locke (that defends him).

[Harald]

By the way, I have of course studied the tapes of Objectivist intellectuals such as Binswanger, Ridpath and Mossoff on Locke -- all lectures superb and highly recommended!

[nemethnm]

Although I don't know of any "modern scholarship" as you put it, I would suggest buyig a copy of the second treatise and reading it.

[BurgessLau]

I've been reading some secondary litterature on Locke's political philosophy (I'm writing a thesis on Locke's Right to Life, Liberty and Property in the Second Treatise). Are there anyone here that is well versed in modern Locke sholarship? It would have been interesting to know your opinion on the scholars who are ripping Locke's theory of rights apart and destroying his reputation. I'm thinking about such scholars as MacPherson, Kendall, Strauss, Dunne, Ascraft -- to mention just a few. I've found a few authors worth reading that defends his rights theory (Vaughn, Rapazinski, Zuckert), but I wonder if there are anyone else out there that is worth reading on Locke (that defends him).

1. My interest is in Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, a summary of Locke's epistemology. For recent scholarship objectively critiquing Locke's theory of rights, which of course is part of his philosophy's politics, I can offer two leads only. First is Robert P. George, a conservative Catholic scholar who supports the use of reason in public debate, liberty (mixed), and free-enterprise (mixed). One Objectivist scholar dealing with Locke described him to me, in a private conversation, as a "good guy." Dr. George is the author of The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis, which is in part a debate between George himself and a leftist. Dr. George is pro "natural rights," a concept which I do not understand.

Second, are you familiar with the work of Robert Garmong, Ph. D, an Objectivist who has been specializing, if I recall correctly, in Locke's concept of liberty and in the subsequent history of the concept in Mill and Rawls? Dr. Garmong occasionally writes editorials for The Ayn Rand Institute, and he has lectured at national Objectivist conferences. (Look for his work in The Ayn Rand Bookstore.) If you email me directly, I might be able to help you connect with him.

2. Perhaps you could briefly summarize Locke's theory.

Is it defensible? Was it objective? Does it follow logically from his ethics and epistemology?

P. S. -- A note on grammar: The word "anyone" is singular, requiring a singular verb, thus "is" not "are."

[Harald]

Sorry for the late reply Burgess, I didn't see your post untill now.

Thank you for your answer, I shall indeed look into Robert P. George.

Your wrote: "Dr. George is pro "natural rights," a concept which I do not understand."

Well, I for one don't blame your. It is the theory that rights intrinsically and mystically inhere in individuals. So I guess it cannot really be understood in the proper meaning of that term.

You asked: "2. Perhaps you could briefly summarize Locke's theory.

Is it defensible? Was it objective? Does it follow logically from his ethics and epistemology?"

That is a very big question and I do not have the time now to answer it properly. Harry Binswanger's course on rights is the best one I've heard yet and includes a very good summary on Locke's theory of rights(Adam Mossof's course on rights is also highly recommended). [Let me come back to you with a summary of Locke's theory of rights in a later post]

As to whether Locke's theory is "defensible", I will for now just say that he is very mixed. His defense of rights is partly mystic and religious, and partly objective. You pointed to the theory of natural rights as difficult to understand, and that theory in Locke is indeed hard to defend.

Very briefly put, I would say that Locke's epistemology and ethics undercuts his political theory of rights. Comparing the Essay and the Second Treatise and showing how they do not compare, is also the strategy modern commentators use to discredit Locke (to a degree Locke does not deserve, in my opinion).

That said, Locke is a hero and without him I doubt the US would have been created.

[A.A]

Hello.

I am not "well versed in modern Locke sholarship" but I would like to make

A small note:

I have recently completed a seminarion paper (I am making a literal translation from Hebrew, I am not sure whether that’s the correct academic term in English) on Locke’s "Letters On Toleration". In those books, he makes it perfectly clear that his premises on the subject are taken from the New Testament, and are in fact based on it.

Most of the scholars I’ve read for the paper were in the opinion that Locke was a true liberal( in the European sense of the word) that based his opinions on man’s natural rights. But that interpretation is based on the Second Treatise. Though his most famous and influential book on political philosophy, I am not sure there is basis for the assumption that that book expresses his way of thought more than the other.

So, I think in order for one to truly explore Locke’s intentions and philosophical premises, one would have to read that book as well.

[Montesquieu]

I may have gotten some facts mixed up, but wasn't John Locke involved in the drafting of one of the original charters of one of the American colonies? I believe it was one of the Carolina's, digging that up may be of use to you.

As for secondary sources and commentaries on John Locke from modern writers I would have to say I am unfamiliar with most of them. I think the commentaries of the founders on Locke are pretty interesting.