2.5 Introduction to John Locke

A series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009.
Slides for all his lectures can be found here:
podcasts.ox.ac....
Learn more about Oxford:
www.ox.ac.uk

[@jerichosfumato]

Locke makes the point that God can make matter think, if he so chooses, and people accused him of impiety? Did his critics reject Genesis because if there's any illustration of Locke's point, it's God breathing into dust to form Adam. Dust is matter. God made it think. What's the difficulty for Locke's critics?

[@superstu84]

This guy is fantastic, Learning so much from him.

[@MrAnthonyVance]

Peter is what I call "The Philosopher's Diplomat". He explains their ideas in such a manner as to keep me spell-bound and wanting more (and I am no beginner to philosophy). These are very enjoyable and enlightening presentations from an impressive teacher. Thank you!

[@joebazooks]

If two people agreed that, say, a flower was yellow -- should not the 'yellowness' be considered a quality/property of the flower itself, instead of a quality of one's interpretation of the "structure" or flower?

[@niyazjamal6158]

great

[@oxforduniversity]

...well, if you believe the philosophy of George Berkeley...

[@mephatboi]

@Nemesis000000 it wouldve been helpful if we could read the damn notes on the projector slides

[@JacoboGarNivi]

Very good to let us know the Big influence of LOCKE . Mainly in Politics and maybe in the theory of Knowledge

[@SuccessResourcesAustralia]

As people are walking all the time, in the same spot, a path appears. John Locke

[@EmilyDickinson1000]

Excellent lecturer. Thanks.

[@TheAngryCanary]

Its a combination. Of the flower, the light, and the person who saw it. In red light, the flower is red. Or if the person does not have cones in their eyes, the flower would be white. So, objectively, the yellowness of the flower is complicated structure, starting from the flower as a lightwave, going through the air, and entering the eye, and then some unknown happening in the brain's nervous system.

[@Chahalpushpinder27]

i like university of oxford.i like this lecture of oxford.its great.

[@joebazooks]

By "knowledge seems probabilistic," what exactly do you mean?

[@joebazooks]

Not only is every idea derived from what we sense and/or experience but, I think, exact ideas may be shared among distinct experiences; what Descartes considers to be innate ideas, the idea of god for example, that single idea (of god) could be imbedded within more than one if not numerous objects of experience and/or sensations; in other words, some ideas are more 'widespread' than others, for a lack of better words, because many more objects possess those ideas as qualities instead of a--

[@jontyroy1723]

What is the difference between idea and knowledge in Philosophy?

[@Israe5l]

These days we have no knowledge. We have no deductive knowledge that can be applied to the world. Knowldedge seem probablistic. (Despite Locke himself) when listening to Mr.Milican something is very convincing.

[@joebazooks]

It seems like certain ideas are innate, but maybe it seems that way because material form is secondary to immaterial form, perhaps physical form is secondary to information.

[@joebazooks]

Sorry for the spam of comments! It could be that knowledge itself is innate while understanding is experiential.

[@stephenarnold3015]

at 8 minutes 30 seconds - this is not rationalism, since to look into the minute structure is already doing empirical research, and to predict behaviour on that basis is not the result of introspection but induction

[@joebazooks]

limited number of objects of experience and/or sensations. I hope that makes sense!

[@massimilianopirrottina5958]

origins of property, labour behind all

[@BrendanBeckett]

Too bad about the awkward ugly microphone/podium set up

[@SunnyDayLove123]

Is it just me or does that look like wine on the bottom right?

[@서건-w1s]

캬 옥스포드 클라스

[@RavengerVG]

Is this about Smoke monsters?

[@marcusfry8125]

He's talking to himself...

[@pm71241]

It's hard not to get annoyed by the arguments of Locke not only being presented as "this is what Locke thought" ... but also as if they are valid today. I certainly can't see any basis in modern science for knowing the behaviour of the universe fully or without experiment.

[@ThinkingDeepThoughts]

What is self?