Locke, Martin and Substance
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4351443 |
|---|---|
| Authors | E J Lowe (Durham University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue | 201 |
| Pages | 499-514 |
| Publication date | 2000-10-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Philosophical Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8094 • E-ISSN: 1467-9213 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9213.00203 |
| OpenAlex | W2053088886 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 14 |
I raise three questions concerning Locke's doctrine of substratum, in the light of his correspondence with Stillingfleet: (1) What was his doctrine?(2) Is it philosophically defensible?(3) Is it consistent with his empiricist epistemology? I defend answers which represent Locke's doctrine as being only partially successful but amenable to improvement in certain ways. C.B. Martin has proposed an alternative interpretation of Locke's position. I examine this and find it to be admirable in many respects but implausible in others
Doctrine · Empiricism · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Theology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Historical Philosophy and Science · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Citations per year | 0.22 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2003 - 2019 (17) |
| Highly cited | No |