Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Locke's Theory of Substance under Attack!

Locke's Theory of Substance under Attack! 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophical Studies Springer Journals

Locke's Theory of Substance under Attack!

Philosophical Studies , Volume 106 (2) – Oct 4, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/locke-s-theory-of-substance-under-attack-ayechf2i86

References (10)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Philosophy; Philosophy, general; Epistemology; Philosophy of Mind; Ethics; Metaphysics; Philosophy of Language
ISSN
0031-8116
eISSN
1573-0883
DOI
10.1023/A:1013162304000
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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

Journal

Philosophical StudiesSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 4, 2004

There are no references for this article.