I introduce this next philosopher and my heart utterly elates. This man has not only managed to widen my sphere of thinking, but has left an imprint that will forever perpetuate in my heart. He is the father of empiricism, and the curator of my thinking, John Locke. He, like his other quite quintessential colleagues, vouched for empiricism. Meaning that he believed that knowledge is gained through experience alone, and that we in fact are born with a blank slate.
Locke believed that there are two essential factors, primary and secondary. Examples of primary factors in an object are its size, length, and width. These factors are unequivocal and nonnegotiable. Meaning that between you and I, there is no difference that meets the light. On the other hand, secondary factors like smell, taste, and sound are indeed equivocal. You can taste something bitter while I find it sweet. Alas, herein lies the potent fact that the senses may indeed be prone to fallibility and that since primary and secondary factors somewhat bleed into one another, we cannot rely solely on our senses to depict reality as it really is.
While John Locke’s proclamation is nowhere near as radical as Geroge Berkleys, his work has indeed posed as the dovetail to many of the Berkleys writings succeeding his work. I for one am insinuating that if secondary factors are subjective, and they predicate primary factors, then primary factors cannot and are not objective in nature, rather are subjective all the more. Time and again philosophers have debated on this perplexing topic that has indeed proved itself to be unsolvable.
Comments