John Locke

“True and False Ideas”

“Ideas are perceptions of our minds,” (1) writes John Locke as he begins this essay. Throughout this essay he is trying to make the point that, ideas that are resident within the mind, and therefore they cannot be, in and of themselves, true or false.

He goes on to state that though ideas contained within the mind are not true or false, can be true or false when there is an external referent present. He bases his point on how he classifies experiences. He writes form the foundation he has build of two kinds of experiences, the first called Sensation, and the second called Reflection. He then begins to discuss ideas as being Simple or Complex. Locke concludes that the more simple the idea, the better chance that it is true. In contrast he believes that the more complex a thought becomes, the greater differentiation provides more opportunity for the idea to be false. He states several examples, but for the sake of brevity this information will be omitted for this short work.

Locke writes that real ideas reside within the framework of three classifications, first, agreed upon standards of true and false if the idea expressed correctly. Second, he calls upon the correspondence view of truth or falsehood. Does the idea refer to something tangible or does it refer to something that is not. Third, he mentions ideas without solid foundation can also be understood as true or false.

Although Locke subscribes to the “Blank Slate” theory of the mind at birth, he does believe the natural bent of the mind is to acquire knowledge. The overall thought contained in his argument is, for ideas to be true they require proper names (agreed upon) and a tangible referent. Ideas act as the bridge that connects these ideas in order to produce truthful statements.

Although I do not normally ascribe to the large volume of ideas presented by John Locke, this particular essay interested me. Locke, within the convoluted grammar of his day, expresses one of the most important ideas used in defense of Christianity. He engages the correspondence view of the truth as he argues his many points. I believe he puts forward the idea that truth is not based on intentions, ideas simply in the mind. I also believe he understands that no matter how complex the idea might be complexity alone is not evidence of truth. I agree with Locke when he asserts that an idea is truthful when it has an external referent, something tangible to the senses.

When discussing Christian ideas with people who do not believe, I find this argument very effective. If we can point people to what one writer calls “true truth,” it helps to erode the walls and barriers to faith. There may be different ways to come to the conclusion of whether an idea is true or false, but there is only one accurate way to define truth. That is to look back and find the referent. When a person acts in a way that does not reflect Biblical standards is there a real consequence?

Two objections are usually offered when we try to evaluate the truthfulness of an idea. Those objections are Relativism and Agnosticism. Both of these ideas can be shown to be patently false based on the idea that if they are correct, then they are self-defeating. To have an idea in the mind that says we cannot know truth, by definition is a truth claim no matter how simple the idea might be. Therefore, to assume some idea about the reality of God, in order to claim the idea as false, is self-defeating.

Having said all of that, Locke added the very dangerous thought subjectivity to empiricism through his concept of ideas. Truth must be based on objective facts. To introduce subjectivity is to introduce the possibility of falsehood.

T