Replies

And by all means, take Locke as your own as well. - me

Thanks, I will, following Jefferson. - you

A couple of notes. First, while the DoI indisputably has strong Lockean themes in it, it is fallacy to reduce Jefferson to Locke or even equate him in synonym with Locke's positions. Jefferson was far more complex than that and posessed the benefit of a number of other philosophical influences that were unknown to Locke himself due to the timeline alone. The issue of government for which Locke himself is famous, the social contract, is itself not a Lockean idea, but rather one that was merely refined in a certain direction by Locke. It existed before him though in men such as Hobbes and even in an element among some of the ancients, albeit each in a multitude directions. Jefferson merely refined it more, having had the benefit of history preceding him, and did so with precision and its political implementation. Whereas Locke's ideas certainly influenced him, they are not fully equatable thereby making it illegitimate to simply claim Jefferson as a sort of bonus that gets thrown in if you pick up Locke.

Second, I again note my own willingness to cede Locke to you and proudly so. I will concede that certain elements of his philosophical thought were significant positive contributions, but by and large what has occurred in his wake of empiricism is nothing short of a disaster. If you doubt me, follow his philosophy to its consequences. David Hume is perhaps the most famous case of this happening and would be a good place for you to look if you want to see it in its finished form.

Simply put, the result is the reduction (albeit one that I would contend as thoroughly fallacious) of reality first to stricly the empirical and from that to only simple sensory impacts and impressions upon the body. With sensation itself lacking certitude and possessing a potential for deception, the very existence of truth itself becomes denied.

Surely you must see where this is going by now, but in the event that you do not, next comes the reduction of right and wrong to sensory impacts of pain and pleasure. Shortly thereafter comes the denial of ones ability to know reality itself. Soon enough, we find ourselves in a radically skeptical world of relativist vomit completely lacking of any purpose or meaning - in short, the philosophical condition desired and advanced by the radical left as the very means by which they achieve existence in a world of unrestricted license absent of any absolute, any responsibility, or any meaningful consequence.

Locke is a popular voice called upon by many, many conservatives today. On the surface, one may find in him a seemingly promising position to latch upon. Many do, and unfortunately most of them never move beyond it. But make no mistake, deeper down is a danger far greater than even the most promising of the elements seemingly put forth in Locke's writings on government. Inescapably tied to them in the form of Locke is the danger of empiricism and what it brings. Therefore it is advisable to seek the beneficial concepts of government seemingly found in Locke in another source, preferably one that has given them greater refinement in a less disastrous direction. And for the record, among these alternatives, Jefferson is at the very least a reasonable possibility.

I believe you also stated that in taking the position I do on Locke, I show my "true colors", and that doing so "is a good thing."

Yes it is a good thing. Further, if voicing my objections to Locke in light of the problems created by his inescapably empiricist philosophical scheme is to show my true color, it is also to show one I will proudly display.

As I said earlier, you can have all of Locke that you want. I stand by that position.

My only addition to that is that you do so at your own risk.