Talk:John Locke

While the article, as it stands, acknowledges some influence from Spinoza (via the argument of Rebecca Newberger Goldstein), it remains quite vague. Wim Klever, in his 2012 article "Locke’s Disguised Spinozism", reconstructs Locke’s immense indebtedness to Spinoza in "the fields of theology, physics, epistemology, ethics, and politics" and arrives at the – convincing but perhaps overstated – conclusion that "Locke’s philosophy … is, in all its foundational concepts and its headlines, a kind of reproduction of Spinoza’s work." I believe it ought to be mentioned in the article that this is at least a tenable position and that an understanding of Spinoza is crucial for the understanding of Locke.

The article in question was published in two parts in the journal Revista Conatus – Filosofia de Spinoza in 2012 but can be found in full online: https://huenemanniac.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/lockes-disguised-spinozism.pdf Joxorium (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"Perhaps overstated" is correct. Academics present fascinating novel arguments about well established subjects all the time, and it is not the role of an encyclopedia article to collate them all unless they become influential in the literature. Remsense ‥ 论 14:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If you say that the article isn't influential enough to be included, I am fine with it (although I don’t know what the criterion for that would be). In my opinion, a relationship of some sort between the two is undeniable when one has read the evidence that Klever compiles, yet my opinion can hardly be enough. Joxorium (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

We're a tertiary source, and we ideally synthesize what is said across secondary sources. To illustrate, it would indicate that Klever's position would be due for inclusion and citation here if his article has seen significant citation in later works, especially in tertiary sources, edited volumes or monographs. Generally, whether others working in the field have been vocally inspired by his ideas, perhaps even in their disagreeing with them Remsense ‥ 论 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Locke is just there to react to Hobbes. He has basically nothing to do with the social contract unless you count calling Hobbes mean. 2001:569:6FB2:F611:50CB:C7EC:FFE6:F58A (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 9 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chillinpuppy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Strawberries2sweet.

— Assignment last updated by Chillinpuppy (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Locke is often associated with his notions about private property that can be acquired after "mixing one's labor with it" although his second revision of the same concept diverged into a notion less about mixing one's own labor and mixing one's slave labor. It hadn't been a means for individuals to obtain private property but instead a means by which wealthy land owners had acquired vast amounts of land via the labor of those they'd enslaved. Matthewrolsen81 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Entry John Locke; section Economics; subsection On price theory; second sentence ...he refers to supply as quantity and demand as rent rent is a misprint for vent also occurs elsewhere in this subsection

See Locke on Money in the Clarendon edition of the Works of John Locke (2 vols Oxford University Press,1991) pages 258-9 from Patrick H Kelly editor of above ~2025-32972-83 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking, it is "rent" (see Economic rent). Seercat3160 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Done: see article cited which makes reference to "vent" in this context. BobKilcoyne (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This page addresses Locke's views on religious tolerance, slavery, child labour, animals, government, and the accumulation of wealth, but not women. I will be addressing his views on women for a school project.

Locke's feelings or beliefs about women are inconsistent and contradictory. In The Second Treatise of Government Chapter VI, §52, John Locke states, "she hath an equal title" referencing a mother to her children. This statement proves Locke's belief that a mother has a right to her children equal to the father, which was an uncommon belief in the 1680's. Additionally, in The First Treatise of Government, Locke introduced rationalist arguments and that "it will but very ill serve the turn of those Men who contend so much for the Absolute Power and Authority of the Fatherhood, as they call it, that the Mother should have a share in it." Although it appears that Locke is attributed parental authority to the mother, "he quickly slipped back into using the common phrase 'paternal' power rather than 'parental' power." This demonstrates how he self-consciously attributed parental authority to the father despite claiming the mother deserves power too. When comparing Locke's statements about women to men such as in Chapter XI, §77, "Men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature." there is no re-evaluation of his claims and he strictly defines what power men hold.

Additionally, in The Sexual Contract by Carol Patemen, she addresses Locke's egalitarian statements about women, and observes the problem of women not truly being included in the social contract. Pateman explains that although Locke rejects Filmer's claims that men hold absolute paternal power, "women are not party to the original contract that founds civil society; instead they are the subjects over whom the contract establishes male political right." Pateman argues that despite Locke claiming mothers "hath an equal title" to their children, he habitually reverts to referring to men as the one's with political rights, owners of property, entering society, and hold executive power. This is evident when Locke states, "Men, when they enter into society." He specifically genders the people who enter society as men. Women are therefore excluded from the domain of political agency despite Locke granting them parental authority.

Mary Wollstonecraft also illuminates how Locke maintains a double standard for women. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft states "society makes women alluring mistresses rather than rational wives." Since Locke attributes rationality and political capacity to solely men, women are stripped of being seen as rational beings. Wollstonecraft continuously argues that women are equally capable of reason and must be granted equal educations and opportunities. She exposes how Locke's political liberalism rests upon how women subordinated within the family by stating, "it is vain to expect virtue from women til they are in some degree independent of men." Similar to Pateman, Wollstonecraft demonstrates that Locke's political philosophy preserves male authority in the household and political order, despite claiming to grant equality to women.

To conclude, Locke inconsistencies such as claiming that "All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom and equality." and "the wife, though equal in rights, generally yields to the husband's will where there is any dispute."  prove his contradictions. Locke's philosophy is critical for liberal political theory, but relies on gendered assumptions that preserve male authority and limit women's full participation in familial and political spheres. Understanding Locke's treatment of women is essential for a complete evaluation of his thoughts. Chillinpuppy (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"Women are therefore excluded from the domain of political agency despite Locke granting them parental authority." Doesn't this reflect the actual political situation in the Kingdom of England during the 17th century? Voting rights restricted to a small elite of male property owners, and every single member of the Parliament of England being male? See the legal background in the article on the Reform Act 1832:

• • "Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of Henry VI, standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these Acts, all owners of freehold property or land with an annual value of at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold, was never adjusted for inflation of land value; thus the amount of land one had to own in order to vote gradually diminished over time.^[a][2] The franchise was restricted to men by custom rather than statute;^[3] on rare occasions women had been able to vote in parliamentary elections as a result of property ownership.^[4] Nevertheless, the vast majority of people were not entitled to vote; the size of the English county electorate in 1831 has been estimated at only 200,000 and 400,000 enfranchised Englishmen overall.^[5]" Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)