Instrumental or Immersed Experience: Pleasure, Pain and Object Perception in Locke
This paper aims to draw out two distinct strands in Locke’s account of our simple ideas of experience: an instrumental and an immersed model of experience. The place of pleasure and pain in sensation is key to the distinction between these two models. After showing this equivocation in Locke’s account, I consider its implications for his account of object perception, or our ideas of particular substances, and suggest that considering these issues in Locke might afford insight into contemporary discussions of the Binding Problem. I conclude by showing how Berkeley and Condillac resolve this equivocation in Locke and considering why Locke himself might have failed to do so.
- Aquinas, Thomas. 2002. The Treatise of Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1a75–89. Ed. and trans. Robert Pasnau. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
- Berkeley, George. 1713/1979. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Ed. R.M. Adams. Indianapolis: Hackett. Cited internally as Dialogues, followed by edition page number.Google Scholar
- Berkeley, George. 1784/1910. A New Theory of Vision and Other Writings. Ed. Lindsay, A.D. London: Everyman’s Library. Cited internally as NTV followed by paragraph number.Google Scholar
- Bermùdez, J.L. 2007. The Object Properties Model of Object Perception: between the Binding Model and the Theoretical Model. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(9–10): 43–65.Google Scholar
- Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de. 1754/1984. Traité des Sensations, Traité des Animaux. Paris: Fayard. Cited internally by TS, followed by Part, Chapter, Paragraph.Google Scholar
- Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de. 1903. Treatise on Sensations. Trans. Geraldine Carr. Los Angeles: USC Press.Google Scholar
- Descartes, René. 1985–1991. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol I and II. Eds. and trans. Cottingham, Stoothof and Murdoch, and Vol III. Eds. and trans. Cottingham, Stoothof, Murdoch and Kenny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Descartes, René. 1996/1908. Œuvres de Descartes. Eds. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
- Downing, Lisa. 1997. Locke’s Newtonianism and Lockean Newtonianism. Perspectives on Science 5(3) (Fall): 285–310.Google Scholar
- Downing, Lisa. 1998. The Status of Mechanism in Locke’s Essay. Philosophical Review 107(3) (July): 381–414, http://www.csa.com (accessed July 22, 2009).
- James, William. 1950/1918. Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
- Jones, Jan-erik. 2007. Locke vs Boyle: The real essence of corpuscular species. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15(4) (November): 659–684, http://www.csa.com (accessed July 22, 2009).
- Keating, Laura. 2002. Linking mechanism and subjectivity in Locke’s Essay. Locke Studies: An Annual Journal of Locke Research 2: 53–79.Google Scholar
- Locke, John. 1975. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon. Cited internally as ECHU, followed by Book, Chapter, Paragraph.Google Scholar
- Meynell, Guy. 2003. Locke’s Corpuscularianism and Boyle’s Corpuscular Philosophy. Locke Studies: An Annual Journal of Locke Research 3: 133–145.Google Scholar
- Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007. Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sanchez-Gonzalez, Miguel A. 1990. Medicine in John Locke’s Philosophy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (December): 675–695.Google Scholar
- Spinoza, Baruch. 1985. The Collected Works of Spinoza, Vol.1. Ed. and trans. E. Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Stein, Howard. 1990. On Locke, ‘the Great Huygenius, and the incomparable Mr. Newton’. Philosophical Perspectives on Newtonian Science. Eds. Philip Bricker and RIG Hughes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, Catherine. 1995. The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar