I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my brain screaming "LIBERAL," pointing, and laughing.
I suppose you're right though. In the context of a 17th century liberal, Locke had some "progressive" views in terms of pointing out the absurdity of treating "patriarchalism" as the supreme governing philosophy. He lags behind most of the succeeding enlightenment era philosophers though, particularly in his absolutism about private property which is still cited by dimwit "classical liberals" to this day. However, his viewpoint is understandable in the context of a society where the King could arbitrarily crush you and take your shit. It is no surprise the aspiring bourgeoisie saw private property as a refuge from this sort of arbitrary rule.
When stood up to other enlightenment liberals like Montesquieu and Rousseau (let alone Paine), it is always a warning sign when people in the year 2020 point to Locke as a source of inspiration though. You could credit Locke as being one of the earliest prolific writers on the trend towards liberalism, but the concepts were refined much, much farther over the course of the following century.
That's fair. I think there is good value in building up a historiography of political thought. In fact, that is the only reason why we still talk about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc. After all, there are much more modern writers who can speak much more accurately about the events taking place in the world around us, but it is the ability to trace modern problems to their original roots which really helps us sort out reality from pop philosophy woo. Considering the progression of philosophers included on the chart, Locke does probably belong there. Adam Smith even more so. It certainly helps to be familiar with an ideological framework if you are trying to refute it.
I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my brain screaming "LIBERAL," pointing, and laughing.
I suppose you're right though. In the context of a 17th century liberal, Locke had some "progressive" views in terms of pointing out the absurdity of treating "patriarchalism" as the supreme governing philosophy. He lags behind most of the succeeding enlightenment era philosophers though, particularly in his absolutism about private property which is still cited by dimwit "classical liberals" to this day. However, his viewpoint is understandable in the context of a society where the King could arbitrarily crush you and take your shit. It is no surprise the aspiring bourgeoisie saw private property as a refuge from this sort of arbitrary rule.
When stood up to other enlightenment liberals like Montesquieu and Rousseau (let alone Paine), it is always a warning sign when people in the year 2020 point to Locke as a source of inspiration though. You could credit Locke as being one of the earliest prolific writers on the trend towards liberalism, but the concepts were refined much, much farther over the course of the following century.
deleted by creator
That's fair. I think there is good value in building up a historiography of political thought. In fact, that is the only reason why we still talk about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc. After all, there are much more modern writers who can speak much more accurately about the events taking place in the world around us, but it is the ability to trace modern problems to their original roots which really helps us sort out reality from pop philosophy woo. Considering the progression of philosophers included on the chart, Locke does probably belong there. Adam Smith even more so. It certainly helps to be familiar with an ideological framework if you are trying to refute it.