Locke conceded in Essay II.xxiii that we have no positive idea of substance itself, only a supposition of 'something' supporting observable qualities, leaving hidden causes irreducibly opaque.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
observable qualities(what we can directly experience, as opposed to the hidden substance beneath them)
Things we can actually see, hear, touch, taste, or smell—like the color, texture, or smell of an object.
positive idea(explaining what Locke said we lack regarding substance)
A direct, concrete mental image of something you can actually experience or understand—as opposed to just knowing *about* something without really grasping what it is.
substance(Spinoza's metaphysics; criteria include (i) necessity and (ii) self-subsistence)
The fundamental existent that is wholly necessary and self-subsistent, not depending on anything else for its existence
supposition
The semantic function by which a term stands for something in a sentence; concrete accidental terms can supposit only for the substance, not for the accidental form they connote.