A crítica de Edward Stillingfleet à teoria lockiana da substância

Carlota Salgadinho Ferreira; Vinícius França Freitas

doi:10.32334/oqnfp.2022n51a922

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Published: Dec 30, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32334/oqnfp.2022n51a922

Keywords:

History of Philosophy, Idea, Substance, John Locke, Edward Stillingfleet

Carlota Salgadinho Ferreira

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-9063

Vinícius França Freitas

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-4732

Abstract

We intend to present an interpretation of the dispute between John Locke and Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, regarding the notion of substance. First, we present some of Locke’s claims that justify Stillingfleet’s skeptical reading of Locke’s treatment of substance. Secondly, we claim that Stillingfleet neglects Locke’s distinction between two notions of substance. Thirdly, we present three hypotheses regarding some claims that Locke and Stillingfleet seems to share about the nature of substance. Fourthly, we argue that Locke is not a skeptical about the existence of substances, although he is committed to the view that the understanding only has a confused and obscure idea of it. Finally, we claim that Stillingfleet neglects that Locke is committed with the experimental method of reasoning in his treatment of substance. In the end, we conclude that Stillingfleet’s view on substance has more in common with that of Locke’s than he realizes

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 51 (2022): About Love

Section

Other Themes

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright Notice

The author of the article or book reviews submitted and approved for publication authorizes the editors to reproduce it and publish it in the journal O que nos faz pensar, with the terms “reproduction” and “publication” being understood in accordance with the definitions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license. The article or book reviews may be accessed both via the World Wide Web – Internet (WWW – Internet), and in printed form, its being permitted, free of charge, to consult and reproduce the text for the personal use of whoever consults it. This authorization of publication has no time limit, with the editors of the journal O que nos faz pensar being responsible for maintaining the identification of the author of the article.

Author Biographies

Carlota Salgadinho Ferreira, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)

Professor at the Philosophy Department of PUC-Rio and post-doctoral resident at the Philosophy Postgraduate Program of the Fluminense Federal University. She holds a doctorate from PUC-Rio (2020), a master's degree (2015) and an undergraduate degree (2013) from FLUP (Faculty of Letters of the University of Porto). She is currently developing research in the area of History of Modern Philosophy, with an emphasis on Hume's epistemology, moral theory and aesthetics, while also maintaining an interest in the philosophies of Aristotle, Locke, Malebranche and Kant. She is a researcher associated with NUPEM (Modern Thought Center) PUC-Rio/CNPq and the Hume Group UFMG/CNPq.

Vinícius França Freitas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)

I have a degree in Philosophy (BA and BSc) from the Federal University of Uberlândia (2010), a Master's degree in Philosophy from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (2012) and a PhD in Philosophy (co-tutored) from the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (2017). I am currently a postdoctoral resident (PNPD / CAPES) in the Philosophy Postgraduate Program at UFMG, I coordinate the meetings of the Modern Skepticism Group / CPNq in the Philosophy Department of the same institution and I co-edit the journal Estudos Hum(e)anos (ISSN 2177-1006). In the field of research, I participate as an associate researcher in the Hume Group UFMG / CNPq and PHARE / Universisté Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. My studies focus on the History of Modern Philosophy, with an emphasis on British empiricism, philosophy of common sense and theories of consciousness, working mainly on the thoughts of John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume and Thomas Reid. In the teaching field, I have experience as a teacher in both primary and higher education (undergraduate and postgraduate).

References

AARON, R. (1955). John Locke: Second Edition. Oxford: Claredon Press.

AYERS, M. R. (1975). The Ideas of Power and Substance in Locke’s Philosophy. In: The Philosophical Quarterly. Volume XXV, número 98, pp. 01-27.

BROWN, S. (1996). Locke as Secret ‘Spinozist’: The Perspective of William Carroll. In: Disguised and Overt Spinozism around 1700. Wiep Van Bunge e Wim Klever (Editores). Leiden / New York / Koln: E.J. Brill, pp. 213-234.

CAREY, D. (2017). John Locke, Edward Stillingfleet and the Quarrel over Consensus. In: Paragraph. Volume XL, número 1, pp. 61-80.

CARROLL, R. T. (1975). The Common-Sense Philosophy of Religion of Bishop Edward Stillingfleet (1635-1699). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

CARTER, S. (1947). Edward Stillingfleet: A Pioneer of Reunion. In: The Churchman. Volume LXI. London: Church Book Room Press, LTD., pp. 118-126. Disponível em:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/061-03_127.pdf

FLAGE, D. (1981). Locke’s Relative Ideas. In: Theoria. Volume XLVII, número 3, pp. 142-159.

FREITAS, V. & SALGADINHO, C. 2023a. A teoria da substância no ‘Ensaio sobre o Entendimento Humano’ de John Locke. In: Trans/form/ação. Volume XLVI, pp. 35-60.

FREITAS, V. & SALGADINHO, C. 2023b. A defesa de John Locke da teoria da substância na Primeira ‘Carta’ a Edward Stillinglfleet. In: Veritas (Porto Alegre). No prelo.

FORRAI, G. (2010). Locke on Substance in General. In: Locke Studies. Volume X, pp. 27-60.

HUTTON, S. (1996). Edward Stillingfleet and Spinoza. In: Disguised and Overt Spinozism around 1700. Wiep Van Bunge e Wim Klever (Editores). Leiden / New York / Koln: E.J. Brill, pp. 261-274.

JOLLEY, N. (2015). Locke’s Touchy Subjects: Materialism and Immortality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

KIM, H. (2019). Locke’s Ideas of Mind and Body. New York e London: Routledge.

KORMAN, D. (2010). Locke on Substratum: A Deflationary Interpretation. In: Locke Studies. Volume X, pp. 61-84.

LOCKE, J. (1999). An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Peter H. Nidditich (Editor). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

LOCKE, J. (1999). Ensaio sobre o Entendimento Humano. Eduardo Abranches Soveral (Tradutor). Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

LOCKE, J. (1824). The Works of John Locke. Volume III. London: C. and J. Rivington. Disponível em: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/locke-works-of-john-locke-vol-3

MABBOTT, J. D. (1973). John Locke. London e Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

MILLICAN, P. (2015). Locke on Substance and Our Ideas of Substances. In: Locke and Leibniz on Substance. Paul Lodge e Tom Stoneham (Editores). New York e London: Routledge, pp. 08-27.

POPKIN, R. (1971). The Philosophy of Bishop Stillingfleet. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy. Volume IX, número 3, pp. 303-319.

SPELLMAN, W. M. (1997). John Locke. New York: Macmillan Education.

STILLINGFLEET, E. (1697). A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity: With an Answer to the Late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture. London: Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard. Disponível em:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A61548.0001.001/1:5.10?rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=Trinity+--++Early+works+to+1800

STUART, M. (2016). The correspondence with Stillingfleet. In: A Companion to Locke. Matthew Stuart (Editor). Malden / Oxford / West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 354-370.

WELCH, D. (2003). Defoe’s ‘A True Relation’, Personal Identity, and the Locke-Stillingfleet Controversy. In: Studies in Philology. Volume C, número 3, pp. 384-399.

YOLTON, J. (1968). John Locke and the Way of Ideas. Oxford: The Claredon Press.

YOLTON, J. (2010). Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding: A Selective Commentary on the ‘Essay’. New York: Cambridge University Press.