Locke on Knowledge
(Essay, Book IV)
Classical Modern Philosophy
Curtis Brown
I. What Kinds of Things Do We Know About?
4.1.1: All our knowledge is
simply knowledge of our own ideas, because our ideas are the only immediate
objects of our knowledge. This is a
consequence of Locke’s representative theory of perception, a view sometimes
known as the veil-of-perception view.
We might pictorially represent the view like this:

Since
our only immediate acquaintance is with our ideas, Locke says that all our
knowledge must be knowledge of the agreement
or disagreement of ideas. This
agreement or disagreement is of four different kinds (4.1.3):
• Identity or diversity. This
is simply a matter of recognizing two ideas as the same or not the same: the idea of white is the same idea as the
idea of white but a different idea from the idea of red. [It’s perhaps not as straightforward as
Locke makes out, though, given Locke’s lumping together of the notion of a
perception with the notion of an idea, and his lumping together of the
intrinsic properties of an idea with properties of the thing the idea
represents. Suppose I look at a piece
of chalk and get from it the idea of white.
Then I look at a piece of paper and get from that an idea of white (a
very slightly different shade, perhaps).
Are those two ideas the same idea, or not the same idea, for Locke? They are both ideas of white, but they are ideas of different
shades of white.]
• Relation. (E.g. the idea of
a dozen is the idea of a larger quantity than the idea of one. Locke himself would probably say that the
idea of a dozen is larger than the idea of one, but that confuses properties of
the idea with properties of what it represents: a foot is larger than an inch, but there’s no reason the idea of
a food should have to be “larger” than the idea of an inch, if indeed ideas can
be said to have sizes at all.)
• Coexistence, or Necessary Connection. By this Locke means two properties of a substance both of which
flow from its essential nature and which hence are guaranteed always to go
together in that substance. (Suppose
all the people I’ve seen (a) have noses, (b) have hearts, and (c) are under
seven feet tall. (a) and (b) flow from
their natures, and will always be found in people, while being less than seven
feet tall need not be. So (a) and (b)
coexist in people, while (c) does not coexist with (a) and (b).)
• Real existence. By this
Locke means the existence of something corresponding to an idea that we
have. But isn’t it odd to call this a
matter of the agreement or disagreement of ideas? Isn’t it rather a matter of the agreement or disagreement of
ideas with the world?
II. The Degrees of Knowledge.
Locke,
like Descartes and Spinoza, distinguishes between three degrees or levels of
knowledge. These are:
•Intuitive knowledge. This is the most secure kind of knowledge;
it corresponds to Descartes’ notion of things we perceive by the natural light,
and which are so obviously true that we can’t doubt them.
• Demonstrative knowledge. This is the kind of knowledge we have of
most mathematical truths: we can’t just
see that they are correct, but we can prove them on the basis of axioms of
which we have intuitive knowledge, by means of very small and simple steps
which we can intuitively perceive must be valid.
• Sensitive knowledge: the knowledge of the existence of things
that we acquire by sensing them. (Here
Locke needs to respond to Cartesian worries; he does so jokingly in 4.2.14, and
more seriously in 4.11.)
III. The Extent of Knowledge.
identity
and diversity: we have intuitive
knowledge of the identity or diversity of all our ideas.
relation: it’s hard to say. We can know a lot about mathematics and morality this way; not
clear how much else. Most of this
knowledge is demonstrative, and is a matter of “finding intermediate ideas.”
coexistence: we don’t know much about this (because it’s
hard to distinguish constant conjunction from necessary connection).
real
existence: we have intuitive knowledge
of our own existence (just as Descartes thought); we have demonstrative
knowledge of God’s existence; of the existence of other things we have only
sensitive knowledge, and that only works while we’re actually sensing the thing
in question.