EMPIRICISM
Locke’s empiricism differs from others because it is based on the belief that in morality and in science there is absolutely no valid principle that is not controlled by experience.
In the work “The essay on the human intellect” of 1690, Locke said that the boundaries, within which knowledge can develop, are determined by experience.
To do this he used similitudes, for example:
- by saying that when we are born our mind is like a blank page which is then filled with content as we experience reality.
Consequently there are no innate ideas, principles and knowledge in the human mind.
At the basis of cognitive processes there are 3 essential things:
- reflection and reasoning (and those are directly linked to internal experiences)
- and sensations (and that correspond to external experiences).
According to the philosopher, true knowledge is obtained only when ideas are in conformity with reality. In fact, Locke’s empiricism indicates that, in the process of knowledge, one cannot always have direct experience of ideas, events, phenomena and objects. For this reason, when direct knowledge is not possible, knowledge is not certain but “probable”.
So we can say that Locke’s thought contrasts with that of Cartesio, who argued that knowledge and ideas were present in the human mind in an innate way. For Locke this was simply impossible and he proved it with children and madmen. In fact they are the proof that there could not be a universal knowledge innate in every individual (because they don’t have it) but that knowledge is formed in the course of life based on the experiences lived.
RELIGION
Religious tolerance
According to Locke, religious persecutions are not an effective tool for achieving peace. In fact, he claims that they harm the state by turning harmless religious dissidents into dangerous political dissidents. Consequently he thought that religious tolerance was not only possible but also necessary. Therefore he says that religious belief must be compatible with reason, because on the basis of a shared reason the different religions can coexist peacefully.
However there are tolerance limits. The following must not be tolerated:
- intolerants (because they impose their beliefs on others, limiting the freedom of others)
- atheists (because they do not respect pacts and promises since they do not fear punishment after death)
- Catholics (because they obey a foreign sovereign, the pope, damaging the security of the nation)
Separation of state and religion
In favor of tolerance, Locke, foresees a strict separation between state and religion, which must not interfere with each other. In fact, religious beliefs do not fall within the competence of the government, which cannot intervene in questions of faith because they concern the sphere of individual knowledge. So the state cannot follow one particular religion at the expense of others. On the other hand, no religion can claim to influence civil authority in the exercise of political power.
LIBERALISM
Locke, a member of the Whig Party (later called the Liberal Party), is considered the founder of political liberalism. This current, by limiting the state power, was committed to the progressive recognition of all citizens of fundamental civil rights, which the government had the task of preserving. The state cannot therefore deny the natural rights of all men, which they are inalienable, but it has the task of protecting them.
According to Locke, men are intrinsically moral because they intuitively respect the law of nature, that is decreed by God, who created us all free and equal. Unlike Hobbes, however, Locke did not believe that men ceded all their rights to the government, but only the right to take justice for themselves. In fact, according to liberal thinking, man gives to the State a part of his person and his freedom but not all of himself, as totalitarianism. Therefore the state must guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual which, according to Locke, already exist in nature.
IDEAL STATE
Locke initially advocated Hobbesian absolutism, but changed his mind after the failure of the Stuarts’ monarchical restoration. Indeed Locke believed in the supremacy of the legislature over the monarchy and that the ideal form of state was the constitutional monarchy.
In his political thinking, Locke tries to design a system based on the advantages of convenience that can provide the maximum benefit to all, through a modern view of the relationship between law, freedom and government – based on popular consent. In fact, people must voluntarily act as a commonwealth of men, relying on the decisions of the majority aimed at the common good.
So Locke thought that men were in a social contract with their sovereign for the protection of three unalienable natural rights: life, liberty and estate. He also identified a fourth right – the right to rebel against unjust laws and their makers. This aspect of Locke’s thinking will be of great importance in the next century when it inspires the American Revolution.
Furthermore, Locke argues that in the state of nature (the original condition) all people are equal and have unlimited freedom. However, with the introduction of money and trade, people tend to accumulate and defend their own property, thereby preventing others from owning property. So there must be a political organization that guarantees peace.
For Locke, power is not and cannot be absolute and concentrated in the hands of a single entity. So Locke, unlike Hobbes, was a believer in the separation of powers. This principle is a classic requirement of both liberalism and today’s democracies.
The division included:
- legislative power of Parliament: the most important.
- and it includes the judicial power
- executive power of the sovereign→ that is subordinate to the legislative power
- and it includes the federative power
