Talk:John Locke

Locke and homosexuality

In the text there is mention of Locke as a bachelor. Perhaps this can be developed. Locke's biographer, Roger Woolhouse suggests that Locke's relationship with Toinard was suggestive of homosexuality. These elements have been picked up by Brian Smith in "Assessing ‘unnatural lusts’: John Locke on the permissibility of male-male intimacy" History of European Ideas (2022); see also Roger Woolhouse, Locke: A Biography (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 149. Bs.smth78 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but maybe there is more to it than just coincidence or political affiliation that Locke returned to Britain as an advisor to Dutch prince William III of Orange, the future British King consort, who was known in those days to be a homosexual. Hansung02 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

On the last line of "Slavery and child labour", change instil to instill. Vorsal (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: 'Instil' is correct in British English, which the article uses throughout. Tollens (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement concerning monarchy and Adam

"Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God." This sentence, with a citation to Two Treatises on Government, states the opposite of what Locke was arguing in that book. He is refuting an author who believed in absolute monarchy based on the idea that fatherhood was the basis of absolute rule and that Adam was the first father and thus the first monarch. Locke masterfully refutes this logic page after page in the book cited leading him to oppose even the idea that Adam was monarch over Eve, which is the opposite of what is stated in this article. I suggest this sentence be removed. 2601:249:447F:1960:4C7E:C02C:C6F2:C21A (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point seems perfectly reasonable. You can do the edit yourself, providing the above argumentation for other editors. Hansung02 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Locke is father of classical liberalism, not all liberalism.

As this article points out very little, there is progressive liberalism and classical liberalism. From the point of thoughts, those are pretty distinct streams. The modern progressive liberalism is quite different from the one that Locke advocated for and which we call classical liberalism. I propose this to be clearly stated and better distinguished otherwise people tend to mix it. MitoSK (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Dates of Birth and Death Formatting

Since Locke's dates of birth and death (29 August 1632 and 28 October 1704 respectively) are established to be in the Julian calendar, would it be appropriate to add the equivalent New Style dates in the Gregorian calendar (8 September 1632 and 8 November 1704 respectively)? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Locke‘s Relationship to Spinoza

While the article, as it stands, acknowledges some influence from Spinoza (via the argument of Rebecca Newberger Goldstein), it remains quite vague. Wim Klever, in his 2012 article "Locke’s Disguised Spinozism", reconstructs Locke’s immense indebtedness to Spinoza in "the fields of theology, physics, epistemology, ethics, and politics" and arrives at the – convincing but perhaps overstated – conclusion that "Locke’s philosophy … is, in all its foundational concepts and its headlines, a kind of reproduction of Spinoza’s work." I believe it ought to be mentioned in the article that this is at least a tenable position and that an understanding of Spinoza is crucial for the understanding of Locke.

The article in question was published in two parts in the journal Revista Conatus – Filosofia de Spinoza in 2012 but can be found in full online: https://huenemanniac.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/lockes-disguised-spinozism.pdf Joxorium (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"Perhaps overstated" is correct. Academics present fascinating novel arguments about well established subjects all the time, and it is not the role of an encyclopedia article to collate them all unless they become influential in the literature. Remsense ‥ 论 14:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If you say that the article isn't influential enough to be included, I am fine with it (although I don’t know what the criterion for that would be). In my opinion, a relationship of some sort between the two is undeniable when one has read the evidence that Klever compiles, yet my opinion can hardly be enough. Joxorium (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

We're a tertiary source, and we ideally synthesize what is said across secondary sources. To illustrate, it would indicate that Klever's position would be due for inclusion and citation here if his article has seen significant citation in later works, especially in tertiary sources, edited volumes or monographs. Generally, whether others working in the field have been vocally inspired by his ideas, perhaps even in their disagreeing with them Remsense ‥ 论 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)