When Locke describes primary and secondary qualities does he mean that PQ are real and SQ are not real? Thank you.
Wildchild,
its so weird that you would make a thread about Locke. Ironically, right before I got on ilp I was studying for one of my philosophy classes, in which presently we are taking up Locke. What a coincidence.
No, he means that Primary Qualities are mind independant (ie. tree)and that Secondary Qualities are mind dependant (ie. color of a tree). But he conceded that he didn’t know how the two interact.
What’s your take?
I can’t remember if he thought whether abstract entities (mind dependant) were real or not. Bloody lot of good I am huh. Why am I posting this?
Actually thinking about it, Magius’s answer raises another question.
Did Locke believe that abstract ideas are objects? If so they exist and are real, if not, they don’t exist and are not real, so your question would be answered yes, but only if you remember what Magius said (which is absolutly right).
But I can’t remember Locke’s position on abstract objects. Then again, I can’t really remember the distinction between them either. Would red be an abstract object or an abstract idea? Is there any difference? I really can’t remember off the top off my head. How depressing. I better go look all that up. Memory like a sieve me.
As far as I remember, for Locke an idea is of an object of which the mind is thinking. Locke’s claim would be that you can only think or have an idea about something you have experienced (through five senses), since you can only experience physical things you can only think and have ideas about physical things.
What’s your take?
Hey what class are you taking? If I remember you go to York University right? I have a test tomorrow on Locke and I also attend York. Later.
Now that’s a coincidence!..
Anyways, i formally declare my intent on one day posting here (i have several opinions on Locke which i would like to get feedback on… )err… just no bloody time 
Wildchild,
hmmm…how did you come upon this site? Did you hear about this site from someone in york?
Anyway, the name of the course is ‘Experience, World, and the Self’ - a second year course taught by Prof. Jopling
silver,
I look forward to your insights on Locke. 
And this is a weird coincidence… 
I’m curious what some opinions are concerning Locke’s identity theory. I recently watched the movie Memento and it had me thinking about the identity crisis all over again. Locke seems to take the stance that we are whomever we remember to be. I tend to agree, although I know there are flaws in his argument, i.e Thomas Reid’s rebutal.
I am weary of changing the direction of the original poster’s thread, which is why I did not briefly describe Locke’s position and counter arguments. So if anyone is unfamiliar with them and would like me to summarize, let me know. Anyhow, your perspectives on the issue would be appreciated
Yep, I’m in that class too. jopling is great. We had a test yesterday I think I did real well. I stumbled across this website via search engine. Anyways take care.
Matthew stated:
Lockes identity theory is strange. One must have a sense of ownership to the action being made reference to, according to Locke. If one doesn’t then he would say it wasn’t them but someone else. For example, if I tell you that I remember how when you were drunk you kept profusely apologizing to every girl that passed you and how funny it was, and you told me that you don’t remember doing that, Locke would say that it was someone else who did it. So anything you don’t remember isn’t, nor wasn’t you. Which carries many problems with it, ie. we usually remember for a while what we did but then we forget. So how is it that it wasn’t you? Furthermore, sometimes we associate strong feelings with who we are and what we are capable of but get upset when people or the world around us keeps interpreting us as something else. Yet when someone reminds us of something we did we remember that it was something to do with who we really are in contrast to what people see us as. In that situation I would say that the memory was not online in our brains while still being a part of who we are. Although I have not heard of Thomas Reid’s rebuttal, I did see the movie Memento and I thought it was great.
But just as you said, I too tend to agree that we are what we remember (we are the collection of our memories). This tends to make logical sense, cause without any memory we could not have an identity, or so I believe. But I believe this to be true only externally, I believe that there is a unique character to all of us that is outside of memory. For the way I apply and merge and mix my memories carries with it a system that is outside my actual experience. Many would argue that it only appears that way, since no two peoples memories are exactly the same we are led to believe by the skeptics that there is nothing more to our identity than memory. I will ponder some more and give more details later.
Actually it hit me as soon as I hit ‘submit’. Locke himself makes reference to many aspects of the mind/body problem as “we can’t figure them out”. One of which is the idea of how ideas are organized in the brain. He admits that there isn’t just a simple storage unit in our brain that just takes stimulus in, but that there is something in our brains that actually groups these ideas together and makes meaning (semantics). This group is outside of our memory and is unique/relative to each individual.
What’s your take?