On (Mis) interpreting Locke: A Reply to Tate
Stanton replies on John William Tate's article conducted to show how he is profoundly mistaken in his interpretation of Locke. He agrees that Tate is correct to insist that one such purpose is absent from politics, namely the salvation of souls. But once more his way of thinking about Locke q...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Political theory 2012-04, Vol.40 (2), p.229-236 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Stanton replies on John William Tate's article conducted to show how he is profoundly mistaken in his interpretation of Locke. He agrees that Tate is correct to insist that one such purpose is absent from politics, namely the salvation of souls. But once more his way of thinking about Locke quite fails to make sense of Locke's arguments for its exclusion from the proper scope of politics. Dr. Tate asserts that Locke pursues a strategy of 'privatization', which reduces faith in its various aspects to a private mailer, that is, a matter of individual belief, conscience, and choice. Moreover, he points out that the ambition of his original article was to exhort Locke scholars to challenge that framework of thought wherever they found it, whether in themselves or in others, in order to escape its unhappier results. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0090-5917 1552-7476 |