MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
I just published in the new PPA and can say it was one of the most difficult, rigorous R&R’s of…
I am a freelance editor that works entirely for major university presses. I’ve even been brought in when outsourced book…
My colleague and I published a textbook with a major publisher several years ago, and the process was much like…
I recently published a book with a top publisher. My experience was similar to the English professor. However, happily, after…
I’d like to give the highest praise to the LSE Press, who published my book “The Open Society as an…
For anyone interested, I have put a brief essay on Instagram – the uncoolest person on Instagram? – responding to…
“given the actual number of career-worthy jobs (i.e. not per-course or adjunct positions)” The “id est” seems mistaken. Many tenure-track…
MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 24, COMMENTS ARE OPEN NOW, DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORT OF THIS RESEARCH WELCOME
That's our guy John Locke, according to an account of a contemporary.
(Thanks to David Zimmerman for the pointer.)
Fun discovery! But will it really revolutionize our understanding of Locke? I was under the impression that the general view of scholars was that OF COURSE Locke had read Hobbes. When I was a freshman in college (back when Lyndon Johnson was president) my tutor(*) in "History and Politics 1" said that Hobbes was in such disfavour that Locke felt he had to CLAIM not to have read him, but that at least one of his political works, having Filmer's "Patriarcha" as its ostensible topic, was really a response to "Leviathan".
(*) a Straussian, so maybe predisposed to see hidden subtexts.
I agree with Allen Hazen that I doubt many scholars have thought Locke didn't read Hobbes (or Spinoza, for that matter). By the way, are there a lot of famous philosophers who weren't vain, lazy, and pompous?
John Rawls was none of those things….. Is he famous enough?
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply