 Welcome to this course on aspects of western philosophy module 14. This present lecture is going to deal with the philosophy of British philosopher John Locke the founder of empiricism. So, before we enter into the topics which we are going to cover in this lecture let us have a brief look at the life and career of this great modern philosopher. He was born in Somerset in 1632 and though like many of his predecessors John Locke also had some sort of a kind of traditional education, but he was unhappy with scholasticism and was influenced by Descartes like many other modern philosophers who follow Descartes. And then later on he moved on to develop I mean he realized that the kind of rationalism which was advocated by Descartes and many others was not acceptable for him and he realized that there is a need for sort of bringing back the role of experience in knowledge. Because the primary question in modern philosophy almost all modern philosophers encountered this question the question is what is the foundation of knowledge, what is the basis of knowledge. So, in responding to this question as we have seen the two great schools of modern philosophy rationalism and empirism. So, John Locke as I have already mentioned is the founder of empiricist school though there are many others who are also equally important or very important, but often John Locke is being credited as the founder of British empiricist philosophy. So, he soon started developing the foundations of empiricism and John Locke is also known as a very influential political philosopher and some of his works some of his treatises are still considered as classics in political philosophy and ethics in the western world. And this present lecture would be focusing the following topics we will discuss Locke's empiricism very briefly and we will straight away come to this problem which is considered as one of the important milestones in the development of empiricist philosophy the refutation of innate idea. So, though it is very controversial what an innate idea is we are not going to the details of these aspects in this course this is only an idea to provide to give an idea about about what does how John Locke establishes the foundations of empiricist philosophy and to establish these foundation he has to refute something the question of innate ideas the idea that the mind is already filled with certain ideas at the time of birth the mind when it comes to when it appears when it makes appearance in this world is already filled with certain ideas. So, this is the notion which John Locke tries to refute and he instead provides his own account of knowledge how knowledge is possible and here he brings his concepts like ideas how ideas he actually advocates a kind of ideation theory of knowledge a kind of representationalism which gives a lot of importance to experience as a fundamental source of knowledge and the notion of ideas and their origins is extremely important in this context and again here when he talks about ideas he divides ideas into two groups primarily into two groups the simple ideas and complex ideas. So, we will see that and then when he talks about the different kinds of ideas the different types of ideas we form he talks about ideas of modes ideas of substances and ideas of relations and this is very important because it is from this notion of different types of ideas particularly the idea of substance that his immediate successor George Berkeley found objectionable and then later on we would see David Hume also develops his notion of empiricist philosophy on the basis of refuting Locke on these some of this fundamental assumptions. Now, let us straight away come to Locke's problem as I have already mentioned how knowledge is obtained is the most important question not only for Locke for but for the entire modern philosophy and Locke seeks to establish the importance of experience the empiricist foundations in a in response to this question the most important question the more the epistemological problem which modern philosophy considered as perennial what is the source of knowledge epistemology as all of us know deals with knowledge the kinds of knowledge the varieties of knowledge the sources of knowledge and the limitations of knowledge. But when he talks about how the old the very foundation of knowledge the very origin of knowledge there you have the two opposing traditions of rationalism and abrisism one group of philosophers the rationalist would argue that all knowledge is innate to the mind there in one sense platonist who would say that the soul knows everything in advance it is only recollection Plato's theory of recollection. So, in one sense the rationalist are platonist they all believe that knowledge is essentially embedded in the soul and when we know something we are only recollecting what we already know under the hand Locke wanted to emphasize that experience plays a very important role in the process of knowledge acquisition and that is what makes the empiricist school very important and later on we would see that Immanuel Kahn was trying to negotiate between these two schools of these two opposing traditions in modern philosophy and tries to present an epistemology of for modern science as well. And what objects are our understanding fitted to deal with what objects are they not fitted to deal these are some of the questions what objects are our understandings fitted to deal with what objects are they not fitted to deal. So, in a response to these questions Locke introduces his empiricist epistemology which is based on an ideation theory of meaning and a representationalist notion of what we can even say a kind of representational semantics follows from that and Locke has written an essay an essay concerning human understanding which is considered as one of the foundational works in empiricist epistemology. Locke himself says in this essay that an enquiry I read an enquiry into the understanding pleasant and useful it is an enquiry into the understanding pleasant and useful since it is understanding that sets man above the rest of sensible beings and gives him all the advantage and dominion which he has over them. So, Locke says that we need to conduct such an enquiry into human understanding and the essay deals with that to enquire into the original certainty and extent of human knowledge together with the grounds and degrees of belief opinion and essence. This sentence in a sort summarizes the entire Lockeian project that it Locke seeks to enquire into the original certainty and extent of human knowledge together with the grounds and degrees of belief opinion and essence. So, there are two aspects here one is a psychological aspect a psychological question concerning the origin of our ideas another one is an epistemological question concerning certainty grounds etcetera. And John Locke does not seem to be making a very sharp distinction between these two concerns for him at least they are intimately interlinked and interconnected. So, it is to seek the origin and certainty of our ideas from where do they come from how certain they are these are some of the questions. And when we enter into this book his essay the book one which deals with the principles nor ideas are innate which actually sets out to refute what is known as innate ideas the notion of innate ideas. I have already explained this that briefly mention this that this notion of innate ideas it assumes that human mind already comes to this world with a set of imprinted notions. The mind already possesses a set of imprinted ideas on it a priori before experience. And this John Locke found is to be refuted to in order to establish the empiricist foundations of human knowledge what are innate ideas in ideas that are native to the mind the foundation of rationalistic tradition. As I mentioned rationalism emphasizes a lot on the availability of such ideas the mind already possesses them there are innate to the mind they are inborn we bring them to the world along with us there are certain ideas which are native to the mind. And again Locke sees to refute this for establishing his empiricist conception of knowledge. And innate ideas are the innate principles of primary notions present in our understanding the soul receives them its very first being and brings into the world with it. And they are speculative in nature some of them of course what server is is and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be this is an example a speculative innate idea this is an example what so ever is is and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be that involves a kind of contradiction. So, this has been projected as a classic example for an innate idea something which human beings do not derive from or gain from experience it is something which we already know it is a priori known that what so ever is is and an object cannot be that object and not that object at the say a cannot be both a and not an object cannot be a and not a at the same time. These are all speculative innate ideas cited as examples now what makes them innate. So, Locke actually examines this question what on what basis that we say that they are innate to our mind and one of the basis on which you know their innateness has been argued is the theory of universal concern that everybody agrees on that no one refutes it any sensible person would agree that what so ever is is no one can sensibly oppose it or refute it. So, and now Locke says that all men agree about the validity of certain speculative and practical principles they are originally imprinted on man's mind men brought them into the world with them as necessarily and really as they do any of their inherent faculties. So, this is what is meant by the universal consent. So, since all of us agree they are native to the mind we bring them along with us and Locke's objection is even if it were true that all men agree about certain principles this would not prove that these principles are innate just because there is a universal consent just because everyone agrees that does not mean that it is innate or it is something which is a priori. The origin of all our ideas can be explained without postulating innate ideas this is assumption or rather this is what he asserts every ideas including the so called innate ideas their origin can be explained without really referring back to postulating the so called innate ideas. Then the hypothesis of innate idea is superfluous according to him the principle of economy should be applied if you can explain even their origin without referring to the notion of innate principles then the whole idea of innate principle is superfluous because you have to apply the principle of economy. And here he takes this example whatsoever is a speculative innate idea it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time has the most allowed title to innate which cannot be doubted no doubt in that yet what Locke says is that these propositions are so far from having an universal ascent. So, he is first of all targeting the very notion of universal ascent and he says that even such a very obvious extremely obvious principle like whatsoever is need not be enjoying this kind of universal ascent which it thought should be enjoying that there are great part of mankind to whom they are not so much as known. There are many people in this world who do not know anything who have no idea about such speculative notions children and idiots he takes the example of children and idiots children are so innocent they do not know though they possess all the rational faculties which adults also possess they seem to be having no idea about such complex so called a priori innate ideas and idiots have minds, but do not have ascent to these truths it is a contradiction to say that there are truths imprinted on the soul which it perceives or understands not. So, if you say that there are innate ideas then all these complex ideas all these ideas speculative ideas everything should be there in the mind the mind should already possess them, but at the same time the mind is not aware of it the person who is not aware of it to say that on the one hand you possess it and on the other hand you do not possess it is a contradiction. So, this means they are not innate again if they are not notions naturally imprinted how can they be innate if they are notions imprinted how can they be unknown therefore, there are no such ideas. So, this is Locke's assumption Locke's conclusion since you cannot construe or you cannot postulate them without involving a contradiction of this sort it is there such ideas do not exist. Now, again one can of course raise an objection to Locke's argument here one can say that all men know an ascent to them when they come to the use of reasons hence they are innate one can always say that they are innate only thing is that they are known only when people start using their reason and it is a fact that every human being is not capable of employing his natural rational faculty sometimes he fail to use that. So, whenever we succeed in using it this innate principles are known to us as soon as when come to the use of reason they come to be known and observed by them and the use and exercise of reason helps man discovering these principles and here Locke comes up with certain counter arguments he says that how these so called innate truths are different from the maxims of the mathematicians and the theorems they deduce from them because mathematical axioms and the theorems which are deduced from these axioms are also equally certain equally universe I mean you can say that they to enjoy this so called universal consent. So, in what sense such maxims are different from the so called innate ideas which are innate which are native to the mind all must be innate all discoveries made by the use of reason must be innate. If that is a case reason itself is nothing else but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles or propositions that are already known and then how can reason discover innate principles while reason itself is a faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles or propositions that are already known then how can you expect reason to discover innate principles. And then Locke goes on saying that this whole notion of innateness involves a contradiction if men have innate truths originally they must have it before the use of reason otherwise we cannot say that only at that moment of when a person starts employing his reason the innate ideas props up then they are not innate appear only when reason appears. So, if they are truly innate they should be there in the mind whether man succeeds in employing reason or not before the employment or reason they should be there but they are always ignorant of them till they use reason this is what apparently the Locke's opponents would be arguing this is to say that men know and know them not at the same time which is a contradiction. And so in that sense again he says children do not know them but they use reason you cannot say that children are rational they also possess the rational faculty and they use their reason but it is a fact that many children do not know anything about this so called innate principles though they use reason again illiterate people and savages are not aware of many such innate truths like whatever is is though they are also rational you cannot say that illiterate people are not rational they also employ they also have a practical day to day life. And practical day to day life one may have to employ reason a lot without that you cannot. So, this is again another counter argument and again men use reason before they get the knowledge of those general truths. So, no innate ideas till men come to the use of reason these general abstract ideas are not framed in the mind. So, this is what Locke was trying to drive us to that all these ideas whether they are abstract or general there is nothing called innate ideas ideas which are native to the mind all these ideas sort of are framed in the mind when man come to the use of reason they are not innate ideas but are discovered by the same steps as several other propositions are discovered. So, this whole emphasis on discovery points to the empiricist commitment of John Locke they are not innate, innate ideas are discovered as being always there but for Locke there are no such ideas even the so called innate ideas are also discovered by the same method mind adopts in discovering other ideas other propositions. If ideas are not innate. So, the Locke problem is now to now once the so called notion of innate ideas are refuted now he has to come up with a positive theory to explain what he means by knowledge when he says that if there are if knowledge is not founded on ideas which are innate to the mind then how do we get knowledge this is a question now he addresses how does the mind come to be furnished with ideas. Because basically all knowledge is the result of having ideas and there is a kind of definition given to knowledge which will explain in the next lecture in a little more detail knowledge is nothing but the perception of the agreement or disagreement between ideas knowledge is I repeat the perception of the agreement or disagreement between ideas. So, ideas are so central for humans to have knowledge. So, how does the mind get these ideas that is a question from where does the mind get all the materials of reason and knowledge. So, upon which the mind would function work and then derive a whole system of knowledge. So, from where do we get those foundational data that is a question and here Locke gives an answer a one word answer it is experience all knowledge have their foundations in experience all ideas emanate from human experience all our knowledge is founded on experience from sensation and or from reflection. There are two sources of getting ideas process of experiencing something itself is divided into two sensations and reflections I will explain what they are. Now, when you talk about sensations this picture gives you an idea of the two sources of experience. So, ideas are the result of experience and experience means either through sensations which means senses convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things. So, when I look around I see black color I see a particular shape I see several I get several smells and several taste and all these things together I form an idea say for example, when I have an idea of red color round shape and a kind of particular order and also a particular kind of taste I call it apple. So, what happens here is that there are sensations one by one sweetness sweet taste out shaped red in color and these are different sensations I get through different sense organs the red color through my eyes the sweetness through my tongue and the kind of solid solidity by touching it. So, sensations are one of the important sources of knowledge and another important source of knowledge is reflection perception of the operations of our own minds when the mind turns inward when the mind perceives what is happening inside that is reflection. So, these two are the foundational sources of knowledge sensations are senses convey into the mind distinct perceptions of things perceptions of how things affect the senses this is very important I will actually explicate it further in the next lecture when I discuss the notion of qualities because there are can John Locke says that I mean his all empiricist theory deals with certain terms which it considers as source central in explaining the process of knowledge acquisition. The first one is experience no doubt sensations and reflection then again ideas and then he talks about qualities. So, all these things like ideas experience sensations reflections to some extent are in me I experience it I sense it I have experience I have knowledge I have ideas, but the moment I talk about qualities then I would be referring to something which is outside me. So, when I say quality of an object black in color red in color a kind of order a kind of sweet in taste all these are something which exist outside me, but again the question is whether they are really outside me or can we say that the taste is also. So, also inside me see for example, the famous saying beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder can we say that a beautiful object the beauty is there in that object or is it me who attribute beauty to that. So, there is something in me which attributes qualities to the object and something in the object which originally possesses certain qualities. So, there are two types of qualities then all these things all these distinctions we will explain in our next lecture. This lecture we will concentrate mainly on the notion of ideas. Now, let us come back to sensations perceptions of how things affect the senses and when you talk about reflections operations of our own mind perceiving thinking doubting believing and building these are all different operations my mind is engaged with. And as a result I get ideas and these ideas are the foundational archetypes of the knowledge which I develops mind gets by reflecting on its own operations within itself. And now ideas in the mind what is an idea an idea is an object of thinking. And the mind can never know the object directly the objects cannot enter the mind directly they can only represent themselves through the ideas to the mind. So, there is always a gap between something called an inner space and an outer space. So, the entire modern philosophy is concerned with this relationship between inner space and outer space. The question of knowledge is this that how does the outer space get into the inner space or to put it in other words how does the inner space know the outer space. They cannot directly enter inside the mind they can only represent themselves through their ideas. So, the ideas are some mental entities which are created by something there in the world the qualities which we will explain in the next lecture. So, idea is an object of thinking we get them from sensations and reflections I have already mentioned this no innate ideas we have already explained that. What is over the mind perceive in itself or is the immediate object of perception thought or understanding is an idea. So, this is the definition given to an idea. I repeat what so ever the mind perceives in itself or is the immediate object of perception thought or understanding is an idea. And Locke also says that ideas are curvil with sensations the soul begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive. It is not that the soul brings ideas with it when it comes to this world it begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive. So, perception and having ideas go hand in hand to ask at what time a man has first any ideas is to ask when he begins to perceive having ideas and perception being the same thing this is what Locke says and this is from the essay. A man begins to have ideas when he first has sensations ideas in the understanding are curvil with sensation. So, now this picture would give you an idea about how this is happening the whole process of knowledge acquisition through ideas through experience and experience through ideas simple ideas which mind perceives them passively. Because as long as the perception or the reception of simple ideas are concerned the mind is absolutely passive the mind has no role to play at all. For example, when I just open my eyes and if there is an apple in front of me I will get an idea of a red color a kind of a solid shape solidity when I touch it and when I taste it a kind of a sweet or whatever taste it has in all these things I am not attributing anything to that I am not contributing anything to I am just reporting what is out there. So, my mind is absolutely passive here this is a very interesting aspect of empiricist epistemology construed by John Locke which has been opposed by many philosopher in after him. And when you come to complex ideas complex ideas are framed by the mind by combining comparing compounding by you know putting together this simple ideas in different ways. So, here the mind is active because I get a complex idea of an apple by putting together all these ideas of solidity color taste smell etcetera. When you talk about simple ideas of sensation Locke says that the simple ideas which we get through one sense the coldness and hardness of a piece of eyes you touch a piece of eyes you feel it hard you feel it cold the scent and whiteness of a lily again the taste of sugar all these things are simple ideas which we gain through one sense one sense organ. And they come to us through one sense only and ideas we receive by more than one sense. So, there are certain other ideas which we receive through more than one sense praise or extension figure rest and motion make perceivable impressions both on the eyes and touch both by seeing and feeling. So, you need more than one sense organ to get this idea. So, that is complex idea simple ideas of reflection of sensation and reflection. So, there are again simple ideas of reflection the ideas of perception or thinking and volition or willing are simple ideas of reflection then simple ideas of sensation and reflections are pleasure or delight and opposite pain or uneasiness power existence unity etcetera they accompany the ideas both of sensation and reflection. When I see something which is really pleasant which I like it is accompanied by the idea of pleasure. So, in one sense we can say that it is a combination of simple ideas of sensation and simple idea of reflection that results in this. Now, there are four classes of simple ideas I this picture would give you an idea about it ideas again simple and complex I am now going to talk about simple ideas alone not about complex ideas. So, I am just leaving it out from hierarchizing it. So, when you go to simple ideas there are simple ideas of one sense simple ideas from more than one sense simple ideas of sensation simple ideas of reflection and simple ideas of sensation and reflection broadly though there are five items listed here broadly there are four more than one sense one sense more than one sense of sensation or reflection or of sensation and reflection. So, the complex ideas might actively frames complex ideas using simple ideas as its material I have already explained this when you put together the simple ideas mind frames complex ideas we can combine two or more simple ideas into one complex idea. We can voluntarily combine the data of sensation and reflection to form new ideas example beauty gratitude a man an army the universe. These are all complex ideas where the mind functions the mind is active by putting together different simple ideas the mind receives from different sense organs they put together and make a complex idea of an object. An army for example beauty is another example for example let us see what happens in the idea of sugar a lump of sugar what is it where I combine ideas of whiteness because my eyes can perceive a white object. So, white color whiteness sweetness my tongue can experience the sweetness and hardness if I touch it is hard to form the complex idea of a lump of sugar. So, all complex ideas are formed in this fashion ideas of substance for example the idea of man or the rose of a gold of collective substances for example an idea of army of modes or modifications or figures for example or of thinking or running and of relations the considering of one idea. So, how complex ideas are made you combine them simple ideas into one compound idea combination combining different simple ideas you compare two ideas for example whether simple or complex without uniting them into one to obtain ideas of relation one is bigger than the other. So, this is brighter than the other. So, I make comparison between two ideas then again separating one ideas from all other ideas that accompany them in their real existence to obtain abstract general ideas. See for example number it is an abstract idea where I separate a one particular aspect one particular idea from all its accompanying ideas and just take that alone where I separate and form general abstract ideas. So, now you have seen that according to Locke there are broadly three classes of complex ideas and this is very important for the next lecture I would be discussing this in the next lecture as well they are the ideas of modes the ideas of relations and the ideas of substance actually the order should be ideas of modes ideas of substance and ideas of relations. And when you talk about ideas of modes they are the complex ideas which contain not in them the supposition of subsisting by themselves, but are considered as dependencies on or affections of substances such as our ideas signified by the words triangle, gratitude, murder etcetera. I just repeat as one part of it ideas which contain not in them the supposition of subsisting by themselves that is why they are called modes, but are considered as dependencies or affections of substances. So, there are two kinds of modes again he makes another distinction simple and mixed simple modes are variations of different combinations of the same simple idea without the mixture of any other and mixed modes are compounded of simple ideas of several kinds put together to make one complex idea. And the most important among the complex ideas is the idea of substance. So, I would be rather giving more importance to this and would be discussing this in the next lecture as well because this plays a very important role in the whole history of empiricist epistemology. And also very important in modern philosophy and enlightenment philosophy because even in Cannes philosophy he refers to this notion of substance. Cannes actually this is a problem which every philosopher every modern philosopher phases because as we have seen that you know the rationalist thinkers never encountered a serious problem because they took for granted the definition of substance as something which subsist in its own something which is absolutely independent and which is the ground of several other things. But for the empiricist who emphasizes on experience particularly on sensations then when you talk about substance the question is how do you know them what is that see for example I have an apple in front of me the apple has a certain color a certain shape a certain smell a certain taste all these things and if I touch it it feels in a certain way. But according to strict empiricist epistemology these are our qualities they do not suggest anything that underlies these qualities as far as I am concerned my experience goes I get only ideas ideas of color taste smell solidity etcetera. But what about the apple something which is a complex idea underlying that complex idea is there anything which is materially present that is a question. So, that material substance is something which the empiricist tradition would find very difficult to account for again when you come to the other substance the mental substance because basically this is what the Cartesian division implies there are two substances. The mind which is taken for granted by all the nationalist philosophers to some extent the empiricist also take for granted the existence of mind with a very significant exception of David Hume that is what makes David Hume the most important empiricist philosopher. So, the mind is conceived as a substance which entertains ideas thoughts emotions all these things. So, there is a substratum the mental substratum. So, this lock when he talks about complex ideas he talks about there are ideas of modes ideas of substance and ideas of relations modes I have already explained now substance we do not perceive substances the infer substance as a support of accidents qualities or modes we cannot conceive the latter as subsisting by themselves I cannot conceive these different qualities I mentioned these different qualities of sweet smell solidity or whatever all these qualities cannot hang in the air put them together in the hair and present an apple. So, they must be sort of attached to something a substratum a more foundational fundamental substratum which is not perceived by my mind, but the existence of these qualities the existence of these accidents presuppose that they belong to something which is a substratum. So, the general idea of substance the idea of an unknown substratum which is which can never be known I can only assume it because I need to presuppose its existence for explaining for giving an account of my experience something that supports accidents. And we have an example we have a number of simple ideas of red or white of a certain order a certain figure or shape and so on which go together in experience and we call the combination of them by one name rose I know not what this is what Locke says about the material substance I give it a name rose or apple or pen or computer whatever it is I give it a name, but as far as I am concerned from the from the true perspective of an empiricist epistemologist what is available in friend of me what is given to me are only ideas. And these ideas do not suggest that there is of an idea which put them together which combined them which place them together in one place the idea of a substratum that is not given to me. So, Locke says that I know that there should be such a substratum there should exist such a substratum without which I cannot explain this ideas or this qualities existing one place qualities cannot be hanging on air they should have some place to which they can hang. So, but I know that there is such a substratum, but I do not know what it is I know comma not what again when you talk about spiritual substances or mind obtained by combining simple ideas of thinking doubting and so on with the vague and obscure notion of a substratum in which these psychical operations in here. So, these psychical operations of thinking doubting they have to incur in some substratum and that obscure substratum is the mental substance. And now we come to ideas of relation the third complex idea any idea whether simple or complex can be compared with another idea as I already mentioned this car is faster than that car or this tree is taller than that tree. So, I am comparing two complex ideas the complex idea of one tree with the complex idea of another tree and saying that this is taller than that this gives rise to the idea of relation. And again this causes that see for example, when I clap my hand it produces a noise a sound I can say that the sound is produced by my clapping the idea of sound is produced by the idea of clapping. So, one precedes the another or one follows the another with this precedence and following I deduce I infer a relationship between them the relationship of causation. And we observe the simple idea of fluidity is produced in wax by the application of a certain degree of heat. So, this is the heat. So, from this I infer that the simple idea of heat is a cause of fluidity in wax fluidity is the effect. So, the relationship of causation is derived from experience in this fashion. So, I will this conclude this lecture here actually we will follow it up with more discussions on issues like for example, qualities have to be discussed, because unless we discuss qualities and again primary qualities and secondary qualities these are some of the distinctions which Locke maintains. And in connection with this entire thing you know the notion of ideas, the notion of complex ideas, the notion of substance relation and qualities put together you know gives you a very comprehensive picture of Lockeian empiricism. And from there we can try to understand the contributions of the next philosopher George Berkeley. So, let us see a summary of the topics which we have seen today the historical importance of empiricism, because empiricist Locke's the whole attempt of Locke was to establish the empiricist foundations in modern philosophy which was dominated by the rationalistic schools which emphasized on a priori knowledge, the conception of a priori knowledge. And for that reason he takes up one important notion which he considered lies at the center of rationalist epistemology that is the notion of innate ideas. The foundational principles like sensations and reflections are introduced in order to explain the notion of experience further. So, the two sources of experience are sensation and reflection and the from sensations and reflection what the mind gets are ideas. So, from here onwards Locke introduces what is known as the ideation theory or the representationalistic epistemology and problem in Locke. And there are some of the issues which we have already seen today I have just presented it, but I have not explicated it further with this introduction of the notion of complex idea and suggesting the substance as one of such complex ideas. So, from there onwards we can Locke starts encountering several problems which we will see in the next and the following lectures. The doctrine of qualities also will be seen in the following lecture I will just conclude with a quote by Bertrand Russell. A quote Locke is the most fortunate of all philosophers, he completed his work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when the government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his political opinions. Both in practice and in theory the views which he advocated were held for many years to come by the most vigorous and influential politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines with the development due to Montesquieu are embedded in the American constitution and are to be seen at work whenever there is a dispute between president and congress. The British constitution was based upon his doctrines until about 50 years ago and so was that which the French adopted in 1871. So, to conclude John Locke though our attempt is to see only his contributions in epistemology in empiricist epistemology particular is a western style genius who is also an equally influential and well known philosopher who has contributed immensely into political philosophy. And there is a definitely a link between his empiricism and his political philosophy which we would not be covering in detail in this course because that is not the purpose of this course. We will confine this course to his contribution to empiricism and epistemology. The next lecture would be on the concept of substance further and also most importantly on qualities primary qualities and secondary qualities.