You're Here:
Home > Chapter 3 > Section 3.3
Empiricism has been an important philosophical movement in Britain for centuries. It is best known for such philosophers as John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume. The British Idealists have often commented on the Empiricists. In this section, I will discuss their views on the movement.
In this section I will not only discuss the epistemological ideas of the empiricists and the British Idealist views on them, but will also provide information on other philosophical themes the empiricists discussed and how these are similar to or different from British Idealist views.
Empiricism in itself is mostly an epistemological movement. It says that knowledge is acquired through experience and hence rejects the idea that we have concepts in our minds before we’ve experienced. They, however, did not say that we don’t have mental experiences like emotions and self-reflections. Nor do empiricists deny instinct. Indeed, we have inborn propensities which regulate our bodily functions, produce emotions, and even direct our thinking. What Empiricists deny, though, is that we are born with detailed, picture-like, concepts of God, causality, and even mathematics. (38)
According to Sean Sayers, in his article “F.H. Bradley and the Concept of Relative Truth”, epistemological philosophy, whether empiricism or rationalism, creates a problem, in that it assumes that true statements are regarded as absolutely and eternally true; and false statements are regarded as absolutely and eternally false (58). When criticizing this proposition, it will, according to Sayers, likely lead to scepticism and relativism. Bradley disagreed with the concept of an absolute and eternal truth, but did not become sceptic. He, instead, came up with the concept of “relative truth”, in which truth consists of elements that are absolutely true or false, but in which a statement is “relatively” true or false.
Green also opposed empiricist epistemology, but he hung more towards Kant’s epistemology of the “categories”. He considered them to be the "connective tissue of the known world” (54). Green also rejected Hume’s and Locke’s idea that sensations are the raw material of knowledge. Knowledge is, however, acquired through relations with what is perceived, and since these are formations of the mind, reality is entirely spiritual.
Oakeshott wrote an essay on Locke. He was very critical of Locke. He disliked the compromise that he sought in his empiricist views, in which experiences that can only be perceived with one sense are not unconditionally real, but those that can be experienced with two or more senses, are. Oakeshott praises Locke for using his own mind in making his philosophy (not imitating anybody else), but he dislikes the mere curiosity and lack of radicalism in the “philosophy” of Locke. He writes:
There is nothing audacious about his speculations, and nothing dazzling or even brilliant about his writing.(48) Oakeshott thinks it’s not that strange that Locke’s philosophy was so influential in Britain – after all, he reasons, “commonplace philosophy has more chance than elsewhere” -, but he attributed the fact that it was influential in France mainly to the fact that the Encyclopaedists didn’t have a philosophy of their own.
The philosophers I mentioned as important representatives of the empiricist movement – Locke, Berkeley and Hume -, did not only write about epistemology. Both Locke and Hume also wrote about politics and moral philosophy.
Locke’s social/political philosophy is in a way similar to Hobbes’, in that he also uses social contract theory to build his system upon. For Locke, people in a society will contract to have a ruler. According to Locke, legitimate civil government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (68) As a result, governments instituted through force are not legitimate.
Hume’s political thought is within the context of history. He views current events in the course of history, seeking the cause of these problems in earlier events. In this way, he disagrees with other philosophers of his time who view current events as the product of chance. Hume writes History of England, in which he rejects the perspectives upon British history commonly held in his time and believes that he gives an "impartial account that looks at political institutions as historical developments responsive to Britons' experience of changing conditions, evaluating political decisions in the contexts in which they were made, instead of second-guessing them in the light of subsequent developments" (47).
Bosanquet wrote about Locke’s political philosophy. He compares Locke’s ideas to Hobbes’ (see 3.2) and draws the conclusion that "Locke brings to bear a truer political experience, but a far less coherent logic." (7) He criticizes Locke’s theory that the work of government is given in conditional trust, which can be dissented with. But, according to Bosanquet, with this system, "the right, which was to be displayed as social, remains a latent right in individuals to assent or to dissent, and society is not represented as a genuine unity." (7) And therefore, the will expressed in the government may be general, but it is not real or actual.
Oakeshott – however critical of Locke’s epistemology and his compromising philosophy -, holds some political views that are traceable to Locke. Wendell John Coats, Jr. writes in his essay on liberalism and Oakeshott about Oakeshott’s definition of “liberalism”, stating that Oakeshott used the word in a narrower, historical fashion, which, according to Coats, has originated from Locke, starting from a position of “natural rights” to argue for the limitation of sovereign authority, and which evolved into claims for material benefits from the state. (14)
It has become clear that the Idealists rejected empiricist metaphysics ad epistemology, the epistemological problems it created. However, mainly Locke's political philosophy has had considerable influence on some British Idealists, even though they had some critique on it.