Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Locke, J. Yolton (1997)
The Works of John Locke
I. Hacking (1972)
Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays
E. Stillingfleet (1697)
A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity: With an Answer to the late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture, Antiquity and Reason
E. Stillingfleet (1697)
The Bishop of Worcester's Answer to Mr. Locke's Letter, Concerning some Passages Relating to his Essay of Humane Understanding, Mention'd in the late Discourse in Vindication of the Trinity
E. Stillingfleet (1698)
The Bishop of Worcester's Answer to Mr. Locke's Second Letter
S. Grave, J. Yolton (1958)
John Locke and the Way of Ideas.The Philosophical Quarterly, 8
J. Locke (1975)
An Essay concerning Human Understanding
E. Stillingfleet (1662)
Origines Sacrae, Or A Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith, as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures, And the Matters Therein Contained
B. Mates, G. Leibniz, P. Remnant, J. Bennett (1981)
New Essays on Human Understanding.Noûs, 19
J.R. Milton (1984)
The Scholastic Background to Locke's ThoughtThe Locke Newsletter, 15
EDWIN McCANN INTRODUCTION Locke’s treatment of the idea of substance in his Essay concerning Human Understanding (1st edition 1690) drew almost immediate critical response from a number of contemporaries. In this paper I’m going to consider the criticisms advanced by four of these contemporaries – Henry Lee, John Sergeant, Edward Stillingfleet (the Bishop of Worcester) and Gottfried Leibniz. I have two aims in view: first, to clarify Locke’s account of the idea of substance in general by exploring the responses he might have made (and, in the case of Sergeant and Stillingfleet, did make) to these criticisms; and second, to enlist these contemporaries of Locke as witnesses, even if unfriendly witnesses, in support of the attribution to Locke of what I will call the ‘no-theory’ theory of substance. I. THEORIES OF SUBSTANCE The first thing to is to do establish what, in general, a theory of substance is supposed to do for us. To begin at the highest level of generality, we can note that theories, in general, are supposed to explain things for us; that is, they are supposed to provide some sort of more or less global, systematic, and illuminating description of a set of phenomena which
Philosophical Studies – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 4, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.