 Welcome to this course on aspects on western philosophy module 15 and lecture number 15. In continuation with what we have been discussing in the previous lecture, we will once again concentrate on the contributions of the great empiricist philosopher, the rather the founder of empiricist philosophy British empiricism John Locke. And this lecture will focus the following topics, we will see a very brief overview of John Locke's theory of knowledge with particular focus on the concept of substance and also on the notions of primary and secondary qualities. We have introduced these concepts in the previous lecture and in the previous lecture when I was discussing this I have pointed out that these are some of the very important contributions of John Locke, particularly the concept of substance and the notion of primary qualities. Because he makes a distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities which has become very controversial among the empiricist even within the empiricist tradition itself, this distinction has been immediately questioned immediately countered by his immediate successor Bishop George Berkeley. And we could see that after Berkeley when David Hume comes up with this radical empiricism which actually leads way to Kantian critical philosophy. And Hume also takes up the same problem which Locke has initiated and started discussing about the problem of substance and Hume comes up with a radical account of what happens to this notion of substance. If you strictly follow the consequences the implications of an empiricist epistemology which relies only on experience. So before we start actually I mentioned that you know I will begin with theory of knowledge Locke's theory of knowledge and the most important postulate or rather the most important theme thesis of empiricist epistemology is that or empiricist conception of knowledge is that as I have already discussed elaborately in my previous lecture that all knowledge is a result of experience all knowledge is a result of experience and there are certain terms which Locke introduces when he talks about knowledge the first thing is that all knowledge is a result of experience. And when you talk about experience he says that there are primarily two sources of experience one is sensation another one is reflection we have discussed it. But the most important probably the most important notion in this context is the concept of idea because that is why I have already mentioned that Locke was initiating a kind of ideation theory of knowledge where ideas play a very important role. And what is the distinguishing feature of an idea is that ideas are essentially and necessarily mental objects they are in the mind. So as far as an empiricist is concerned the primary source of knowledge is the ideas the ideas which are there in the mind the ideas which mind comes to know. Of course an empiricist would say that these ideas are not innate to the mind this is where the empiricist is different from a rationalist. Both empiricism and rationalism give a lot of importance to the notion of ideas. But when it comes to the origin of ideas the empiricist would argue that they are created they are produced by certain forces outside the mind they are not something which is native to the mind. And that is why in the previous lecture we have seen Locke has began his entire project by criticizing and refuting the very notion of innate ideas ideas which are native to the mind. I am not going to repeat all these things just to remind that there is an importance given to the notion of idea. And ideas according to Locke are produced by forces which lie outside the mind they come from outside they are not something which is there within. And from where do they come from that is another question because an empiricist or an epistemologist when he talks about knowledge which are result of ideas because knowledge is defined as a perception of the agreement or disagreement between ideas. If that is the case from where do these ideas come from the ideas come from or the ideas are produced by sensations and reflections or primarily by sensations which are coming from without from an outside world. And what is this outside world you are talking about that is another very controversial notion as far as philosophy is concerned. Can you ever talk about an outside world placing yourself either within it or outside it against which you stand. This whole notion of mirroring which we would find in 20th century philosophy. Many philosophers notably the American pragmatist thinker Richard Rottier Rottier written a book the mirror of nature philosophy and the mirror of nature where he questions this very conception of mirroring mind as a mirroring of nature something which is out there. So the whole notion that there is a reality out there is questioned by 20th century philosophers we can see that the root of this problem lies in empiricist epistemology in the philosophical condemnations of this great British empiricist thinker John Locke. Now let us talk about knowledge I have already mentioned this I will just repeat it is the perception of the connection or agreement and repugnancy or disagreement of any of our ideas. So knowledge deals with perception of the connection or agreement or disagreement of our ideas. So basically knowledge has to deal with perception and ideas. It perceives ideas the connections between ideas the agreement between ideas and the disagreement between ideas. So this is what the foundations of any ideation theory of knowledge any representationist epistemology this is the basic foundation. We have certainty about the ideas alone we cannot talk about anything else but only about ideas when I open my eyes I or when I look around I see a world. But can I really say that I see a world there is a very famous statement made by Berkeley would see it in the next lecture when he says that I speak with the vulgar and think with the vice a philosopher would speak with the vulgar saying that there is a world outside but when you think like a philosopher you have to think like a thinker a philosopher. You really have to doubt or you cannot accept take for granted the existence of a world that exists outside your mind. What is this world? We can be certain only about our own ideas because as far as I am concerned the fundamental archetypes of my knowledge are my ideas. And I do not know from where do they come from there is no 100 percent certainty about whether these ideas are produced by something else. As far as I am concerned ideas alone exist we have certainty about the ideas alone and no self-evident knowledge of real existence except of oneself and God. So Locke says that except of oneself my own mind about me I have self-evident knowledge about me I cannot doubt my own existence the same old Cartesian problem because the very process of doubting itself asserts my own existence. And he would say that God's existence also cannot be doubted interestingly Locke would say that my own existence is a result of intuitive knowledge and God's existence is a result of rational knowledge. Existence of oneself is intuitive existence of God is known by reason. And what do you mean by reason here it is very interesting he uses the term reason in a very different sense not in the sense in which we understand it today in the light of developments that have taken place in modern science where reason is almost equated with observation or experimentation and the whole paraphernalia on which modern science depend. So existence of God is known by reason and now let us come to the knowledge the very notion of knowledge because we have began this lecture with the notion of knowledge. And as we have already seen in the previous lecture knowledge is intimately linked with the notion of simple ideas I have discussed this distinction between simple ideas and complex ideas in the previous lecture of course we would be elaborating upon this distinction in this lecture as well when we discuss elaborately the concept of substance. So here knowledge agrees with the realities of things Locke says that knowledge agrees with the realities of things. So this is again a kind of realistic picture a kind of representationalist attitude. So from the outset we can say that knowledge agrees with the realities of things and what you mean by that the simple ideas which represent things outside the product of things operating on our mind. So when we talk about knowledge the immediate reference is to the simple ideas which the mind has and they are representatives of things outside the mind the product of things operating on our mind. So actually what Locke says is that these simple ideas are produced by things outside the mind and these things are qualities we will come to that. Bodies outside us arose in us sensations that generate simple ideas and we are passive in the reception I have already discussed all these things in the previous lecture assumption is that these things are out there. So this is what I already mentioned the very assumption the fundamental assumption of an empiricist epistemology is that there is a world outside the mind I mean as I have already mentioned in the previous lecture mind represents an inner space while there is an outer space of objects and the whole notion of knowledge is trying to explain the connection between the inner space and the outer space. How does the inner space know the outer space or how does the outer space get into the inner space that is the whole mystery of knowledge is the epistemologist of all traditions were trying to explain the rationalist would say that the inner space is already full just like something which already knows everything and the empiricist would say that the inner space is a tabula rasa a blank sheet on which nothing is written. So experience writes on it John Locke's famous statement tabula rasa mind is an empty cabinet a white sheet of paper where nothing is written but experience starts writing on it and when experience starts writing on it we get ideas and these ideas are compared with one another combined with another we get knowledge. So the whole system of knowledge is built upon that and the basic assumption is that there are things out there and simple ideas are copies of these things. Now when we talk about complex ideas though we have introduced the term in the previous lecture I would be elaborating upon this here they are not copies they do not refer to anything original out there. For example when I talk about my simple idea of sweetness there is something which is out there which produces it but when I talk about an apple it is highly doubtful. I mean from the perspective of an empiricist epistemologist who relies only on ideas we cannot ascertain the existence of an apple or any object for that matter except qualities like red color round shape sweet smell etcetera these are qualities except these qualities we cannot ascertain the existence of an apple as an object mind makes them. So it is the mind it is a reflective capacity of the mind which combines compares compounds and in different ways the mind create this produces this idea patterns or archetypes made by the mind and the complex idea of substance is the most interesting and controversial as I have already pointed out I am going to say why it is interesting and why is it controversial before discussing substance but this is what Locke says though he talks about substance he says that before we go into before we enter into that discussion we have to really talk about you know how ideas are formed and it is in this context he introduces the notion of quality and the quality as I have already mentioned in my previous lecture is the powers that produce ideas in the human mind. So ideas and qualities are interconnected in the Lockeian framework I mean in the context of trying to understand their complex interrelationship I would once again go back to the original definition of idea and then come to the notion of quality and see how they are interconnected how one produces the other. So about idea whatsoever the mind perceives in itself or is the immediate object of perception thought or understanding is an idea since I have already discussed this I am not elaborating here example a snowball you have you have white color you have some sort of a sensation of cold etcetera the sensations or perceptions of the qualities like whiteness like cold and various other sensations and the snowball itself are called ideas I have an idea which is of course a kind of complex idea which Locke would later explain the idea of snowball is a complex idea the simple ideas are the color the kind of sensation I have and all those things. So they are the ideas and when we talk about qualities the power to produce any idea in my mind is a quality and the snowball's power of producing in us the ideas of white cold and round qualities the qualities of white the qualities of cold the quality of round all these are sort of the qualities which an object in the outside world has and these qualities produce ideas in my mind. And this is another very important and very very interesting aspect of Locke's philosophy which is extremely complicated and extremely controversial we can see that the entire epistemological tradition has discussed this notion of primary quality and secondary qualities the distinction which Locke considered as very important in his philosophical framework which Berkeley onwards would not consider as really important and even the very notion of quality itself is suspected by David Hume. So all these things all these interesting discussions actually start unraveling from Locke's introduction of this distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities when he was discussing the interconnection between qualities and ideas. So what are primary qualities there are qualities which are primary which are secondary which are more real and which are not really more real. So primary qualities are qualities that are inseparable from a body they are inherent in the body without which you cannot conceive that body which are there in the body these are all primary qualities and again remains in the body even when it undergoes changes. So something which remains in the body even when it undergoes several changes so you cannot separate it from it again example qualities of solidity, extension, figure and mobility, motion or rest and number are all primary qualities which Locke conceived as inseparable from the object and they are original or primary qualities of the body. So they are original they are in the body they are not attributed by us or they are not the result of we perceiving them in a certain way or our attributions to the object. Say for example when I say a beautiful flower beauty of course is a quality but it is definitely an attribution an attribution by my mind the same Ross or the same object or the same painting which I found as beautiful may not be found as beautiful by another person another person might even think it is ugly. So here beauty and ugly are attributions of the mind they are quite subjective but again I am just citing this example to show that these are not the secondary qualities again because even secondary qualities are not purely subjective according to John Locke secondary qualities the examples given to secondary qualities are for example you know the white color of a flower of snow for example. So these are primary qualities they produce simple ideas in us so this is what Locke ultimately says these primary qualities are the abilities which objects have in producing simple ideas in us and again when you talk about secondary qualities not in the objects themselves. So they are not quote unquote objective they are powers to produce various sensation in us by their primary qualities and example colors sounds taste and orders these are all termed as secondary qualities by Locke. And once again let us go back to primary qualities they are resemblances of bodies they resemble what is in the object they are there they resemble what is in the object something which is quote unquote objectively present the body. Say for example solidity the solidity of a snowball or anything for that matter an apple but the red color of an apple is not something which is there which is really there their patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves. And example the idea of figure it resembles the object itself which causes the idea in us and again the object really has a figure so in that sense they are objectively present in the body their real qualities as they really exist in the bodies whether anyone perceives them or not. Say for example many of the qualities depend on or perceiving them and this is what probably the basis of the distinction between one of the basis for conceiving a distinction between primary and secondary qualities and interestingly Berkeley actually blurs this distinction for him or qualities are in that sense secondary he would say that to be is to be perceived. But for Locke that is not the case things exist independent of me perceiving them so he is a realist in that way while Berkeley is an idealist he is a realist is an empiricist an empiricist a epistemologist a representationist and a realist. So he says that they are real qualities as they exist in the bodies whether anyone perceives them or not while secondary qualities have no resemblances of them at all anywhere in the world. So you cannot say that you cannot assert that they are there in the object there in the body or ideas produced by them do not exist in the bodies themselves. And example the idea of color the red rose or idea of red does not resemble the rose considered in itself. What corresponds in the rose to our idea of red is its power of producing in us the idea of red through the action of imperceptible particles on our eyes. So in that sense they are merely they are merely secondary they are not primary they are not really part of that object. But as I said let us not confuse secondary qualities with something which is purely subjective like beautiful for example which is subjective to some extent we can say that it is subjective. But secondary qualities are not subjective in that sense they are not purely subjective because they are powers really in the objects that can produce simple ideas in us. There is something in the object it is the primary qualities which produce them but there is something in the object which generates them. But these ideas of colors and sounds etcetera are not copies of colors and sounds in the object themselves that is the point in which he makes the distinction they are there but they are not copies of colors and sounds in the objects themselves. And it is here Locke encounters certain difficulties in is the entire project of Lockeian epistemology encounters certain difficulties with regard to this notion of or with regard to this distinction he makes between primary qualities and secondary qualities. Locke's representative theory of perception does not ascertain the existence of anything else other than our ideas I have stated it in the beginning itself. If you follow the implications the strict implications of an empiricist epistemology which relies on experience which says that all knowledge is the result of experience and in that sense all knowledge have their foundations in our ideas. Then we can talk only about our ideas ideas and ideas alone and these ideas are produced by qualities and he says that there are primary qualities and secondary qualities and the very distinction is made on the basis of something which is really there in the object and something which is not really there in the object. So in the case of primary qualities you can compare these ideas with the object I mean that is presupposed. So you need to compare it find that they are originally present but how do you compare with what do you compare? You can compare only your ideas nothing else because as far as empiricist is concerned only ideas exist. So that is what he says ideas of primary qualities really resemble things ideas of secondary qualities do not really resemble things. So primary qualities do resemble and secondary qualities do not resemble. So there is a concept of resembling ideas resembling things. But how do we know that ideas do actually resemble things? How can you ascertain that ideas do actually resemble things? What we know immediately are ideas alone we cannot know anything beyond them we cannot know anything beyond these ideas which are there in the mind which we discover which we encounter in our mind. But from where do they come from? Is there anything outside there with which they can be compared all these are outside the scope of an empiricist epistemologist? We have no way to know whether these ideas do or do not resemble things we cannot compare we can compare one idea with another because both ideas are mental entities. But we cannot compare an idea with something which is lying outside our mind because this is a mental entity and that is something which is a physical or whatever non-mental entity as per as non-mental entities are concerned we have no direct access to. So if you try to compare our ideas with something which is lying outside the world we are envisaging that we would be able to compare a non-mental entity with a mental entity. And this whole process is a mental process how can you bring in a non-mental entity into a mental process this is impossible. So the idea of comparison the very notion of comparison is inapplicable when it comes to things which are not ideas again we cannot be certain that things other than our ideas even exist as per as I know I can only be certain about my own ideas. But I do not know anything beyond that we cannot compare ideas with things to see whether they resemble them or not. Representationalism of Locke fails in establishing the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. So if you strictly follow the implications of empiricism you cannot maintain a strict distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities. You have to bring all the qualities to the same level or rather it is highly doubtful whether you can ever talk about qualities because the very assumption is that something lies outside this is a humane derivation. Hume says that how can you talk about anything that is outside the mind you can only talk about even the mind itself as an entity a single entity homogenous entity is itself a construction something which we construct artificially we can doubt its own existence apart from impressions just impressions nothing exist this is what Hume says anyway we will discuss that when we discuss the contributions of David Hume. So now let us come back to ideas and substance we are sure of ideas or collections or clusters of qualities that is the only thing I am sure about there are ideas or collections or clusters of quality which create the idea say for example apple. Apple is nothing but a cluster of certain qualities out of which I mean from where I have created this cluster there are several ideas like red color taste smell etcetera. So putting them together I create an idea the idea of an apple which is a complex idea I just cannot subsist by themselves. So I have already discussed this in the previous lecture but I think I need to explain it once again from this context in this lecture because it is a very important concept to be discussed the notion of substance it is originated from the assumption that ideas cannot subsist by themselves. There must be some substratum where they subsist the substance which is the support of such qualities which are capable of producing simple idea in us. So this substratum is something which lies at the foundation of the notion of substance the support of qualities, qualities cannot hang in the air qualities should subsist somewhere they should hang to some something what is that something that something is the substratum the substance the complex idea of a substratum a support for qualities this complex idea of a substratum is the support of all the qualities that where qualities are attached to a support in which the primary qualities in here. So again the notion of primary qualities are important here to explain the notion of substance the substratum the primary qualities the original qualities of the substance actually in here in this substratum and again it is a copy of the archetype to which the idea refer the idea of substance the copy of the archetype to which the idea refer we put together some qualities in our idea of substance like qualities of white sweet solid etcetera in nature are put together to get the idea of sugar I have already explained this several simple ideas coexist in a substance. And these qualities coexist in an unknown bearer or substratum which we do not experience the dependence of these qualities on one another we cannot say that one quality is associated with another and there is a relationship between them rather we can we only found them together we only found them coexisting in one place. So we assume that there must be something which is supporting their coexistence to which they are all attached to the metaphor of attaching attach getting attached to or getting hang to or hanging to. And now when we talk about the origin of our idea of substance the unknown support of those qualities we find existing and these qualities cannot subsist without something to support them. So this is what they cannot hang in the air. This is the substance we infer its existence as a support of accidents qualities of modes and complex idea of substance is collection of simple ideas with a supposition of something to which they belong and in which they subsist. So this is the idea that it is a complex idea the complex idea substance is a collection of simple ideas all the simple ideas put together whiteness sweetness solidity etcetera. All these qualities put together all these ideas put together with a supposition to which they belong and in which they subsist and we have no clear and distinct idea about what exactly it is. If you ask me what exactly is see I can talk about an idea for example the idea a simple idea of white color there is some clarity about it there is some distinctness about it. I can say that it is a simple idea of whiteness and it is not a simple idea of redness there is clarity and distinctness. But if you ask me the question what do you mean by an idea of substance I do not have an answer to that question I have no clear and distinct idea about it. I just infer its existence it is a matter of inference it is being suggested by the the the coexistence the apparent coexistence which I experience of simple ideas. So this apparent coexistence which I perceive suggest that there should be such a support I know not what in the previous lecture also I have mentioned this Locke says that I know there must be such as a substratum to which ideas are attached to but what is it I do not know because as far as I am concerned my knowing or knowledge is concerned they presuppose ideas and I do not have an idea about substance or substratum. Because the very notion of substratum is that it is the support of ideas. So ideas are supported by it it is not an idea in itself so in that sense I can never know it I can only infer its existence. So I know that it exists but I do not know what it is. Now formation of complex idea of substance so he says that there is a distinction between complex idea of particular substances like apples, snowballs, sugar, etcetera etcetera and the general idea of substance. There is a general notion of substance substance what is that? So he says that complex idea of particular substances are obtained by combining simple ideas say for example I have already pointed out the complex idea of sugar is obtained by combining simple ideas of white color, sweetness and solidity and various ideas and we combine them and put it into one single substance and call it sugar. But the general idea of substance something which is say for example a material substance matter which philosophers have been talking about there is matter something material substance which philosophers have been talking about and Locke says that it is obtained by abstraction a process of abstraction and when you abstract something what you do is that you isolate one thing from the rest of the things that is how you isolate. So here also you infer the existence of a substratum and by means of abstracting it by assuming that these qualities these ideas should have somewhere. The general idea of substance is derived from scholasticism because it is scholastic philosophers who talk about this who discuss this notion of substance elaborately because that is one of the central notions we have seen it. How Descartes and Spinoza and even Leibniz they have inherited this problem and for all these great rationalist philosophers this scholastic notion of substance is one of the central philosophical concepts central philosophical problems. Locke can also not ignore it. So in one sense he has also taken it from the scholastic his heritage but at the same time his notion of substance is substantially different from the scholastic conceptualization. It is not a clear and distinct idea first of all but the scholastic philosophers it is very clear and distinct and an unchanging substratum hidden beneath the changing phenomena according to Locke it is unchanging it never undergoes any change and it is hidden beneath the changing phenomena. It refers to the power of the reflective mind that reflective mind assume that it is the support and lies beyond experience and is an unknown substratum I know not what it is unknown and unnervable. And let us see now so we have seen that the shoes which we have discussed today we began with ideas and we have seen the interrelationship between ideas and qualities and we have seen that this when it comes to qualities there are two types of qualities Locke talks about the primary qualities and the secondary qualities and this entire distinction of primary qualities and secondary qualities would ultimately help him to substantiate his idea about the notion of substance because substance is something which is ultimately conceived as an entity in which the primary qualities in here. So there is a connection between primary qualities and the substance a particular substance is always understood in terms of the primary qualities that are inherent in it but of course Locke also means a distinction between the substance in general and particular substances. Now when you talk about substance again there are three types of substances he talks about there are three types of substances the first one is the material substance I know not what the material substance the matter that is in which the qualities the simple ideas like the sweetness the solidity all these ideas all these qualities hang on it. So that is the material substance then the second one is obviously the spiritual substance the mental substance or the soul the mind. So we can see a revisiting of the mind body dichotomy in John Locke's philosophy in a different way and of course the third one is God the supreme substance again we could see that the scholastic philosophy is reflected concerns of the scholastic philosophy is reflected here concerns of Cartesian philosophy is reflected here. So in one sense Locke also addresses similar issues with which almost all his predecessors were concerned about. So when you talk about a spiritual substance a substance which things it is an immaterial spiritual substance something which things cannot be material. It is an immaterial spiritual substance and the idea of such a substance like we have already seen that the material the notion of material substance is obtained by means of assuming that there should be a substratum to which qualities the simple ideas qualities which produce the simple ideas in our mind must be subsisting to a substratum that is the material substance. So similarly how do you derive this notion here obtained by combining together simple ideas of thinking again there are two sources I have mentioned for experience sensations and reflection. So here direct reference is to reflection to thinking. So the simple ideas obtained through thinking doubting and so on which are obtained by reflection with the vague and obscure notion of a substratum in which these psychical operations in here. So this whole thing you know when I think when I doubt when I will all my psychical operations presuppose that there must be a psychic entity to which they belong a unity and that I the psychic entity to which all the psychic mental operations belong is the spiritual thinking substance according to Locke. Thinking is not the essence of spiritual substance but only an action of it that is what he says. So in that sense he is different from Descartes. Descartes conceived thinking as the essence as the attribute but for Locke there cannot be any such attribute essential substance. And here obviously I have already mentioned this that there is a kind of analogy with the corporeal substance or the material substance about both we have no clear and distinct idea about the substances we cannot have clear or distinct ideas. Bodily substance by putting together corporeal qualities and supposing a support for them all these qualities put together and there must be a kind of support to them to which on which they subsist that substratum is a material substance. Similarly, Saul is by reflecting upon the operations of my own mind like thinking, knowing, willing, understanding etcetera and joining them to a support putting them together and assuming that they must subsist somewhere they must belong to an entity a thinking substance. And now before we conclude this discussion on Locke's philosophy and particularly on his notion of substance there is one very important substance apart from the mental substance and the physical substance mind and body there is God which is the pure spirit ever active substance. God alone is ever active mind and body for example, matter for example, is basically inactive God alone is active mind is active and inactive sometimes active sometimes inactive. So, you cannot consume mind or spiritual substance as an active substance God alone is purely active in that sense and as we have already discussed this our ideas about God it is nothing innate to that I mean it is not a result of something which is native to the mind no innate idea of God attain knowledge of God by using natural abilities by using reason and what Locke says is that we thought the idea of God by taking the ideas of existence which we are aware of things various things around us exist. So, the idea of existence duration things exist for a duration. So, we have the idea of duration knowledge and power pleasure and happiness and we have all these ideas our mind does is that our mind enlarges all these ideas to its maximum degree. So, we have the idea of pleasure and this idea of pleasure is something which we enlarge we shoot it up to the infinite infinite pleasure knowledge we have all our knowledge is limited, but we shoot it up to infinite knowledge we enlarge it to infinite knowledge we say that there is infinite existence infinite duration infinite knowledge and attribute all these infinite qualities to one substance that is God that is how we come to know about God. We combine these infinite ideas, but at the same time Locke admits acknowledges that one cannot know God's real existence because the limited finite human minds can never know the infinite God in its entirety. So, that is also something which is acknowledged and now let us before we conclude once again God mind and body the three substances God alone is ever active I have already mentioned is matter is passive mind is active and passive act is as it can move the bodies and passive in receiving ideas produced by the bodies outside us my mind is passive ideas do not come according to my wish of course, I can close my eyes and stop all the ideas coming ideas related to visual images are coming, but as soon as I open my eyes I have no choice ideas just come they are outside there. So, somehow the world outside have the abilities to produce ideas in my mind. So, I am passive as far as that aspect is concerned, but I am active because I can make movements in the physical world. So, mind is both active and passive mind is more easily conceived than the body because the existence of the mind existence of my own mind is not through induction it is a matter of in duty knowledge all ideas are due to the action of the body on mind which is called the theory of interaction and mind and body according to Locke would interact bodies act on mind and produce sensations primary qualities produce ideas of solidity extension and motion and their copies of real qualities in the body I have already explained this secondary qualities on the other hand like colors sound taste etcetera are not really out there, but are effects produced on the mind by solid extended objects. Now, let us conclude Locke's empiricism is historically a very important philosophical movement he has initiated an extremely important philosophical movement and it has come from the British tradition of philosophy while most of the other rationalist philosophers are continental thinkers. The most prominent empiricist philosophers are British empiricist thinkers like you have John Locke and after that Berkeley Bishop Berkeley then again David Hume all are British philosophers and it is historically very important it is very close to common sense and some of the very fundamental assumptions of modern science which relies a lot on empirical experience and experimentation. The importance of Locke is to develop an empiricist epistemology that was foundational and the political theory that was equally foundational. So, two ways we can assess the importance of John Locke in the history of philosophy of course in this course we would not be concentrating much on Locke's contributions to political philosophy though they are extremely important I mean he has phenomenal contributions in political philosophy as in the previous lecture I have pointed out some of his basic assumptions of political philosophy were adopted by the British parliament sometime back and even the French also have taken it, but our course will be more focusing on his contributions to the empiricist epistemology and there also his influence and his contributions are phenomenal and we can see that his immediate successors also sort of they reject some of his basic assumptions they try to build his or they try to develop the empiricist epistemology he founded to further heights and after that when we reach the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant the critical philosophy of Emmanuel Kant where Kant actually tries to bring together the two opposing traditions of empirism and rationalism there again Locke re-emerges as an important influence on Kant and also when Kant develops his political and ethical philosophy. So, the next lecture we will try to focus our attention on the contributions of John Locke's immediate successor George Berkeley till then thank you.