Skip to main content

The Hebraist Interpretation of John Locke

Image result for fish and fowl

In a new book, Yechiel J.M. Leiter offers a "Hebraist" interpretation of the political philosophy of John Locke. This view holds that, despite Locke's nominal affiliation with the Church of England, and thus by inference, with Christianity, the New Testaments play very little role in his thinking. Furthermore (on Leiter's view) classical Greek sources play only a minor role. Leiter says that Locke's views were formed largely from contemplation of the Old Testament.

Leiter is not merely a man of ideas but a man of affairs in Israel. He has served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Locke has always struck me as a schoolhouse pest, given a role as venerated sage in American secondary school education because of his importance to the founding generation, but not especially intriguing in the way that other great Brits, like Thomas Hobbes or Adam Smith, often are. But perhaps Leiter's argument can induce me to give Locke another look.

Leiter places great importance on Locke's reading of Genesis 1:28, where God bestows upon Adam dominion "over the fish of the sea and fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth on the earth." Filmer, a defender of the divine rights of the absolutist Stuart monarchs, had interpreted this language as making Adam to first in a line of patriarchs, so that he (Filmer) could maintain that the Stuart Kings are the latest in that line, and that we (good Brits and contemporaries of Filmer that we presumably are) owe to the Stuarts the allegiance that Abel gave to Adam. [Abel was neither fish nor fowl but he WAS a 'living thing moving on the earth,' as was disobedient Cain.]

Locke, as Leiter reads him, contends that Adam is addressed here not as the first in a line of patriarchs but simply, and more democratically, as the first in the line of humans. Leiter's Locke regards this notion of dominion as grounding the idea of human equality.  We are equal to each other in that we are all superior to, i.e. have dominion over, the fish and fowl etc.

I'll break off the thinking here. It turns out thinking of Locke in connection with Old Testament exegesis does not make him cease to sound like a schoolhouse pest. Well ... I gave it a try.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more