Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
John Locke, a prominent figure of the British Empiricist tradition, profoundly influenced modern philosophy with his *Essay Concerning Human Understanding* (1689). Central to his epistemology is the concept of ‘substance,’ which attempts to explain the underlying reality that supports the qualities we perceive. Locke grapples with the problem of how we can know things that exist independently of our perceptions. His theory of substance, while aiming to provide a rational basis for our understanding of the external world, ultimately faces significant challenges regarding its coherence and explanatory power. Examining Locke’s theory requires understanding his distinction between primary and secondary qualities and how substance relates to both.
Locke’s Conception of Substance
Locke defines ‘substance’ as something that is “supposed to be the basis of those qualities we perceive.” He argues that we experience qualities – like color, taste, smell, and texture – but these are merely modifications of something else, something that *underlies* them. This underlying ‘something’ is what Locke calls substance. However, crucially, Locke insists that we can never directly perceive substance itself. We only perceive its qualities.
Primary and Secondary Qualities & Substance
Locke distinguishes between primary qualities (shape, size, solidity, motion, number) and secondary qualities (color, taste, smell, sound). Primary qualities, he argues, are inherent in the object itself and resemble our perceptions. Secondary qualities, on the other hand, are powers in objects to produce sensations in us. Substance, for Locke, is the substratum that *possesses* both primary and secondary qualities. It’s the ‘thing’ that is extended, has shape, and is capable of causing sensations.
The Role of ‘I Know Not What’
Locke acknowledges the difficulty in understanding substance. He famously describes it as “I know not what.” This phrase highlights his epistemological humility. He believes that while we are justified in *believing* in the existence of substance to explain the coherence of our perceptions, we cannot actually *know* what it is. Our ideas are always of qualities, not of the underlying substance itself. This is because all our knowledge comes from experience, and we never experience substance directly.
Substance as a Necessary Fiction
Some interpret Locke’s theory as a form of realism, suggesting he believed substance truly exists as an independent entity. Others argue it’s a pragmatic fiction – a useful concept for organizing our experiences, even if it doesn’t correspond to anything real. Locke’s insistence on the unknowability of substance lends credence to the latter interpretation. He needed a concept to account for the unity and persistence of objects, but he was unwilling to claim we could know its true nature.
Criticisms of Locke’s Theory
Locke’s theory of substance has faced several criticisms:
- The Empty Substrate Problem: If substance has no qualities of its own, it seems to be an empty, meaningless concept. What is a ‘thing’ that has no properties?
- Coherence of Qualities: If qualities exist *in* substance, what holds them together? Locke doesn’t provide a satisfactory explanation for this.
- Berkeley’s Idealism: George Berkeley famously used Locke’s theory to argue for idealism – the view that only minds and their ideas exist. If we can never know substance, Berkeley reasoned, then there’s no reason to believe it exists at all.
Locke’s attempt to reconcile empiricism with the common-sense belief in an external world ultimately proves problematic. While he successfully identifies the limitations of human knowledge, his concept of substance remains a source of philosophical debate.
Conclusion
John Locke’s theory of substance represents a crucial attempt to bridge the gap between our sensory experience and the reality it represents. While his insistence on the unknowability of substance acknowledges the limits of human understanding, the concept itself remains fraught with difficulties. The criticisms leveled against it, particularly by Berkeley, highlight the inherent challenges in grounding knowledge solely in experience. Despite its flaws, Locke’s exploration of substance remains a foundational contribution to the development of empiricist epistemology and continues to stimulate philosophical inquiry.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.