Date: 29 Jul 96 02:54:20 EDT From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-CompuServe.COM> Subject: Locke on the under-labourer I liked the way John Mage quoted the passage >from Locke containing the concept of the under-labourer. So the concept is English false modesty! And if philosophy is "nothing but the true knowledge of things", how could anyone wish to claim greater omniscience? John's biographical note refers to the activities of Locke alongside other men of learning of the new bourgeoisie, prepared to challege absolute authority whether in politics or in learning. John's suggestion that Locke's sentence might be submitted to a contest, prompts one to wonder how much Bhaskar admired or even modelled himself on Locke. I thought Locke's sentence was excessively long but also elegant. The elegance of Bhaskar's preface also struck me since I have been in trepidation of getting immersed in him. The passage from Locke reminds us that in the sixteenth century books were written as much for reading out aloud as reading silently. A long sentence with suitable emphasis of voice and breath control, is more intelligible. (Is Bhaskar more intelligible read out loud?) One can also see that in polite bourgeois society of the seventeenth century one had to negotiate one's place with customary modesty, and effective assertiveness. In reality I cannot imagine that Locke did not know he had done so successfully, and was the peer of people like Sydenham, Boyle and Newton. In conclusion therefore the main thing I draw from John's reference to Locke's foundation passage is the modest grandeur of the claim to be an under-labourer. I like it. Chris Burford London
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005