John Dunn, Locke. Oxford(151215)

*John Dunn, Locke. Oxford(151215)

[데카르트의 합리론, 그리고 본유관념을 반박하며, 영국의 경험주의적 철학 전통을 확립한 로크의 사상에 대한 간단한 개요서. 이 얇은 책자를 두고 로크의 철학을 운운하는 것은 우스꽝스러운 일이겠지만, 시대를 앞서서 다양한 철학적 문제를 공구한 인물이지만, 또 한편으로는 시대의 제약 속에서 적어도 표면적으로는 유신론적이고 기독교적인 입장에서 자신의 주장의 정당성을 주장한 인물.

[지성론]을 다 읽어봐야 그의 철학에 대해 좀 이야기할 수 있으리라. 그렇긴 하지만, 정부와 국민의 관계를 ‘계약’으로 본 그의 [통치론]은 서구 민주주의의 초석이 된 것임에는 틀림이 없다. 그리고 기독교 내에서이긴 하지만 종교의 관용을 주장한 것도 당시로서는 상당히 혁신적인 것이다.

-[발췌]

[Preface]

(v) How is it that human beings can know anything? And how should they try to live?

 

(8) [지성론] 'to examine our own abilities and see what objects of our understanding were or were not fitted to deal with'

(9) 1679 - Charles 2세와 Earl of Shaftesbury의 권력 다툼. (Shaft는 네덜란드로 망명갔다가 곧 죽음.)

(10) Letter on Toleration : 종교의 자유. (물론 무신론까지 옹호한 것은 아님. 기독교 내에서의 자유.)

(16) The theory of knowledge set out in the Essay is in some ways extremely sceptical. Locke himself did not regard it as in any way impugning the truth of Christian belief. But most of his contemporaries were hardly in a position to share his confidence since, if the arguments of the Essay were true, the particular interpretations of Christianity which they happened themselves to believe were certainly false.

(21) The clearer his view of what man can know became, the less convincing became hiw view of how they have good reason to live their lives.

(27) [Essay on Toleration] Human belief cannot submit to the claims of authority; and it cannot be true for any human being that he has good reason to abandon his own beliefs about what God requires of him at the command of another human being.

(28) [통치론에서의 생각의 변화] The pivotal change in his political views, from a commitment to passive obedience to a vindication of the right of resistance to unjust political authority, was a change in his conception of how men could and should judge what is capable of preserving their society.

(33) a theory of political equality and responsibility, resting on the judgement of each individual adult.

(36) (Hugo Grotius)

(38) [개인의 재산권은 그 원천이 ‘노동’이다.]

Labour is what distinguishes what is privately owned from what is held in common; the labour of a man's body and the work of his hands.

(43) Locke, like Thomas Aquinas, believed that all men had a right to physical subsistence which overrode the property rights of other humans.

(46-47) [로크의 견해도 홉스의 견해와 크게 다르지 않음. 자연 상태의 인간은 만인 대 만인의 투쟁. 이 부분은 좀 자세히 읽고 생각해 볼 필요]

What it[the state of nature] is designed to show is not what men are like but rather what rights and duties they have as the creatures of God.

(51) 정치적 권위(권력)이 힘을 갖는 것은 ‘국민들의 동의’에 따라서. 이것이 그의 주된 골자.

(52) two intractable rights: the right of a ruler within a legitimate political society to use political power against the law for the public good; and the right of all men to resist the ruler even of a legitimate political society where he grossly abuses his power.

(58) [신을 안 믿을 권리는 없음]

There is no right . . . to disbelieve in the existence of God, since belief in a God is 'the foundation of all morality' and a man who lacks it is a noxious beast incapable of all society.

 

(60) The view that many human beliefs deserve blame, that men are in large measure responsible for their beliefs, was one of Locke's deepest convictions, but also one which he found acute difficulty in justifying.

 

(70) The key judgement for Locke is that a man can deserve punishment for an evil action because this action demonstrate for he has 'vitiated his own Palate'.

 

(71) 로크 철학의 범위

the relation of human thought and experience to their objects, how words get and retain their meanings, how men perceive, how human knowing and understanding operate.

 

(75) if God did not exist, man 'could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions'.

 

(78) 버클리, 라이드, 칸트 등이 그의 핵심 개념의 compatibility를 문제 삼음

1) the senses give men knowledge of the external world

2) all knowledge consists of mental acquaintance with ideas

 

(87) If truth does in the end depend upon human desire, and if men have no end but their own wills, then the life which Locke himself lived was a ludicrous exercise in self-denial.

 

(88) Many philosophers today, unsurprisingly, share his belief that truths about nature and about complex inventions of the human mind, like mathematics and logic, are independent of human desire.