If you are not a Christian, don't assume that this book is only of interest to "the Godly" or those who want to promote Protestant education. Watt was a conservative but scientifically enlightened preacher and his advice, particulary in part II, where he discourses elegantly on how to be an effective classroom teacher, very often rings as true in the 21st century as in the 18th, and is full of common sense suggestions for any kind of teacher, from evangelical to atheist.

Isaac Watts has left us a rich inheritance in his book The Improvment of the Mind. His approach provides excellent advice on how to obtain knowledge through all aspects of life, yet keeps the larger reality of God always in view. This book is loaded with thought-provoking gems to make us more efficient and proficient at true learning. Dr. Watts' has established a sound basis for education from early youth all the way to old age. This book is a tremendous resource for educators, parents, and anyone concerned with making solid decisions about how to teach and how to learn. I consider this work to be a blessing offered to us as the legacy of a great man of God.

I must recommend this book to anyone who wants to improve their mind, learn new study techniques, the true way to study, the reason for study, etc. This is a highly enjoyable book. Written in sections, you can pick it up and start reading anywhere that you find it interesting. There is a section on raising young men and women. A very godly man wrote this, and it shows through.

Sheldon

Locke's _A Letter Concerning Toleration_ is key for many reasons, not least of which is its startling relevance to contemporary society. Locke sees tolerance as fundamentally a "live and let live" situation, a state which must be acheived to avoid the endless relativity of a regime fueled by religion; as each man is orthodox to himself and heretical to others, he argues, religious tolerance *must* be a basic societal tenet for the state to function. Excellently argued and written, Locke's _A Letter Concerning Toleration_ is an "inevitable read" for most students that should be welcomed with open arms and minds.

This work by Locke, in spite of its brevity, is a required piece of reading in order to put in perspective the other endeavors of the author.
The issues discussed in this Essay were at the base of the formation of political theory in the Western world, during the centuries of enlightenment. Locke's effort in the case of this Letter (of the 4 he wrote, this is the first one, published in 1689 in English, from a text published some months previously in Holland) was the rescue of religious tolerance vis a vis political powers and structures, and the recognition of the need for a sphere of private religious freedom, legally guaranteed and exempt from the interference of political power.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: When Locke wrote this Letter, there was still controversy regarding the definition of the concepts of liberty of conscience and religious freedom. In fact, the first step of the ladder is represented by the idea of religious tolerance. The starting point of analysis, at the time, came from the observation of the fact that certain degree of intolerance has always existed (religious, political, racial) in the human nature. If one analyzes the origin of religious intolerance in the western world, it stems necessarily from the fact that every Church or denomination, claims with more or less clarity to be the sole bearer of the truth. In this context, what could be the meaning of "tolerance" as a concession or pretense ? To recognize to the dissidents and minorities the possibility to coexist peacefully in a certain society, without having to renounce the external manifestations of their beliefs. But the need for religious tolerance can only make sense in a society where a dominant religious majority has the power to impose onto others its dogmas, either directly (a theocratic government) or through secular political power (the papist states).
On the other hand, the concept of religious freedom implies the recognition for the individual of the natural right to freely profess and express his beliefs, without the intervention or interference of political power or Government. Accordingly, whilst tolerance had been considered historically as a "concession" granted by the dominant religious movement or Church to other religious minorities, religious freedom appears in the Western civilization only once the political power is separated from the religious community. And here the Reform had its influence.
LOCKE'S TOLERANCE: Against this background, the problem of tolerance appears to Locke as a political problem, based on his conception of the State as a society born out of the consent of free men. In his State, it is logical to deny the political power, the possibility to interfere in private matters. Locke defends religious tolerance recurring to several arguments.
Politically, war and factionalisms are not the product of religious differences, but of human intolerance. In other words, it is not a requisite for the State, in order to function, to have a unified religion. From the religious standpoint, the Church is a free and voluntary assembly. No man can be forced by the magistrate to enter or remain in a specific Church or religious denomination. Only if we freely follow the mandates of our conscience, we follow the road to salvation. Thus, all political efforts to force us to adopt the "true faith" are vain and anti-religious.
Persecution, in itself, is not Christian and Locke concludes that in all matters related to the faith, violence is not an adequate or acceptable mean to gain followers.
Religious freedom, therefore, is a natural right of the individual and truth cannot be monopolized by any single religious denomination or person.
RESTRICTIONS: Does Locke really advocate absolute freedom for all men of every sect or religion when he writes: "Absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty, is the thing that we stand in need for"?
Not really. Tolerance has to be just, but practicable, in accordance to public interest. Therefore tolerance cannot condone ideas that are contrary to society or to moral rules required for the preservation of society. Doesn't Rome require submission from a catholic prince to a foreign power? For Locke, there is no real distinction between Catholics and atheists, from the political standpoint.
CONCLUSION: For Locke the only limits to religious freedom are the need to avoid damage to other individuals and the preservation of the existence of the State. On the other hand, such a freedom is only viable as a consequence of the secularization of politic and the separation between Church and State. I TRULY RECOMMEND THIS SEMINAL WORK. Time has not taken away certain lessons that are to be learned, if we want to live in a better world, a more tolerant one. GOOD ANTIDOTE AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISM.

John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration is one of the most under appreciated texts in the liberal tradition of political philosophy. When read in conjunction with his Second Treatise, it clarifies the relationship Locke envisions between individuals and the Lockean state. The subject of the Letter is specifically religious toleration, but his general argument for toleration is also applicable to issues of more modern concern.

In the letter, Locke argues that all religious practices should be tolerated unless they are a threat to the proper functioning of the state. Some specific practices are not tolerated - Locke perceives the Catholic allegiance to the Pope, at that time, not only a religious leader, but also an influential foreign political leader, as a threat to the state, and he believes that atheists cannot be trusted by the state, since they have no higher power to whom they can swear an oath. Locke does not tolerate these individuals, because of his (inaccurate) perceptions of them, but religion is still not the basis for their non-toleration. (In the sense that others who are inherently untrustworthy, or bowed to a foreign ruler, would also not be tolerated, regardless of their religion).

The toleration of some other practices is situational. For instance, a state that normally has no law against individuals slaughtering animals (for food, et al) cannot prevent a religious sect from sacrificing an animal, but if that same state, needing meat for its troops in a time of war, bans all private citizens from killing animals, then this ban applies likewise to the sacrifice of animals as part of religious worship. This is not a state of license, in that the civil government does not actively promote a variety of (or for that matter, any) religious practices, but it is a state of negative liberty, in which the state remains neutral to the religious content of religious worship. Specific sects or acts of worship can be banned if they are "prejudicial to other men's rights" or they "break the public peace of societies," but they cannot be banned on religious grounds.

Some critics have argued that Locke's Letter is no longer very relevant: he deals only with religious toleration, and religious toleration is widely accepted and practiced in the modern Western world. However, the historical context of the Letter suggests it retains its relevance. In Locke's day, religion was not the dormant issue it is today; rather it was the most controversial issue of public debate. Before Locke, toleration was just something the underdog wished for in order to survive until he gained power over everyone else. Locke, however, goes beyond this pettiness and creates a theoretical defense of toleration as an extension of his political theory. While Locke probably did not imagine the controversial issues of political debate today, the broad basis for his defense of religious toleration implicitly justifies other sorts of social toleration in the modern world.

If a state is created for the purposes and by the methods Locke suggests in his Second Treatise, then the men who consent to form such a state retain a significant negative liberty of belief and action. Any of these beliefs or actions must be tolerated by the state unless they fail Locke's criteria for religious toleration, namely, unless they are "prejudicial to other men's rights" or they "break the public peace of societies."

If possible, I would recommend trying to find a copy of the Routledge edition of this work (ed. Horton & Mendus), which includes critical reactions to Locke's Letter. However, Amazon currently lists it as out of print. Whatever edition you can find is worth reading: the need for toleration is as great in our own time as it was in John Locke's, and his contribution to the debate is likewise as valuable now as it was then.

i purchased this book from amazon after reading an article that I found while researching a topic for my term paper. I made an impulse buy... figured it would be a good read, and it in fact was. I am a computer fanatic. Both my jobs are computer oriented and i couln't be happier. While researching my topic "The Social Effects of the Internet upon Society" i discovered just how much an effect the internet has had on us all. Even if we arn't tech-heads. This is a great book for anyone who wishes to discover how different mediums are splitting us apart, and how this may affect our futures.

I would not consider myself to be a tech junkie, but I do know my way around a computer, software, and the internet. After reading Locke's book, I was able to put into words what I could not before on where I think the internet is headed. I agree with Locke that we are losing our voice. Instead of meeting someone to talk or calling them on the telephone, we are sending them an e-mail. This is not a big problem now, but in ten years, there will be a noticeable difference in society. If society keeps going at the pace it is right now, we will lose the ability to communicate without the use of a computer. Locke's book is a wake-up call.

Prof. (Dr.) Yaffe,

Your words have been inspirational to both my peers and I. Thank you for your insight and help in this complex philosophical world. Everyone should read this book. Dr. Yaffe has accompished the impossible and has answered the unanswerable. We're all waiting for the next one.

Do I have free will? And if I have her and I call her "Liberty," is she worth the name? To professor Gideon Yaffe of the University of Southern California, the answers are 'yes' and 'you bet, Huckleberry!' In Yaffe's latest tour-de-force, he offers up the intellectual key to open the door to the shoddy basement where Free Will has lain dormant in the philosophy mansion on Important Problems street. But although the key fits the Locke and the basement sorely needs cleaning, the door will not budge easily. Yaffe points out early on that this stubbornness is due to the rust brought on by decades of stagnant contemporary philosophy. In order to facilitate entry into this dark cellar of festering potential, Yaffe says we must anoint its door-hinges with a hefty dose of the old-school grease of John Locke. And here, in the greasing, is where Yaffe shines. As I, the reader, accepted the gentle overtures of Yaffe and Locke and descended arm in arm with these men into the darkness of Free Will, I could not help but feel I was being guided by docents of unusual perspicuity--perhaps even of the caliber of those at Graceland. As Yaffe flicked on his many lamps of insight, Locke pointed out the cracked walls of volition, the musty sweaters of self-consciousness, and the urine-stained mattresses of good conduct. Yaffe and Locke seemed to organize the room right before my eyes, their taut muscles rippling under the weights of their efforts.

The book includes most of the standard Yaffian literary tricks aficionados have come to expect--the inappropriate (yet deliciously naughty!) introduction of profanity to underscore a critical point, the thinly-veiled references to the author's ample manhood--but unlike in his other recent works (Yaffe's titillating but philosophically unsatisfying 'I Gets Mine' comes to mind) these ploys are not incorporated gratuitously. Many times I would bristle at Yaffe's use of the f-word to make a point, when a simple line drawing or mathematical equation would seem to have sufficed. But my discomfort would gradually melt into recognition, and then understanding, and, finally, I would become aroused. "Oh yes," I would sigh contentedly, "I am experiencing Yaffe."

Yaffe wields old man Locke like a jedi light saber against the modern philosophical Darth Vaders who would trivialize or oversimplify Locke's conception of free will. But, in the final assessment, is Yaffe the triumphant Luke Skywalker or the beaten, bodyless robe of Obi-Wan Kenobi? This reviewer unreservedly calls him Skywalker. All hail Gideon Yaffe, the Jedi Master who cleaned up the basement.

The author does an excellent job in demonstrating the influence of John Locke on the great thinkers who founded America. Backed by an enormous amount of scholarship, and written clearly, this book removes any doubt about the roots of classical American liberalism. The ideas on which "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are based were derived from the writing of Locke (and others). And ideas move men to action. The Founding Fathers were true believers, and not (as the leftist movement in academia would have us think) merely attempting to justify the economic supremacy of the wealthy class over the masses. Their beliefs stemmed from a long British tradition of freedom in which Locke played a major role. The author argues his case with cool and meticulous logic. "Locke in America" makes a major contribution and is a pleasure to read.

I really got an insight to the way John Locke must have been thinking at the time

I neglected to mention one thing about this book. Jolley sees himself not just as a student of what Locke said but as if he is in philosophical interaction with Locke and his critics. He presents many common criticisms of Locke and responds to them. He also leaves Locke stranded in places where he really seems to have gotten himself into trouble. This book does a great job not just approaching the issues but also in trying to clarify them in the terms of contemporary philosophers and in defending Locke against the all-too-quick criticisms he often receives.

Nicholas Jolley has produced a great resource for students first encountering Locke or for those who are familiar with Locke but would like to get more into the details of his philosophical views. This book is intended as an introduction to his thought and is directed at advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate students. It gives enough details to begin work on any of the diverse topics covered in it, with references to direct the reader elsewhere for further discussion. Unlike most books on Locke by philosophers, this one also includes his political theory and shows its relation to Locke's other views by tying together threads of his thought from one topic to the next. I thoroughly enjoyed working through it in a graduate seminar taught by the author, but I can see that it would be quite valuable just as a resource or as an accompaniment to someone's trying to approach Locke's thought in detail but without much background.

Reading the empiricists is a rare treat. Because of their style, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume seem to be more accessible to the novice and general reader than much of philosophy. However, the three essays included in this volume are welcome additions to the Oxford University Press's "Past Masters" series, and anyone reading this book will gain a greater appreciation for the empriricits. Highly recommended.

Any search for this text will result in a plethora of commentaries upon it, whilst it itself seems almost doomed to take second place. The importance of this work to philosophy cannot be underestimated; Descartes is held in common perception to be the figure who changed the course of philosophy. Whilst it is true he may have dipped his toes in uncharted waters, Locke was the first to plunge in. Here we find human understanding stripped to its first principles and from there rebuilt in such a fashion as to purge the presumptions of our age. Locke recommends modesty to the philosopher and thinker throughout and in our current times this message might need restated. In a world, which owes so much to the United States Constitution, it would be appropriate for us all to see what it owed its own origins to and be recalled to values of liberty, modesty and reason in a way which does not rush headlong into a catastrophe of pride.

this book includes one of the most helpful accounts of the connection between the 'social contract'and the 'second discourse'in rousseau's philosophy that i've ever read. hoffman is clear and to the point, but manages, at the same time, to bring up original and insightful points about the rousseauian project. i highly recommend it.

The importance of this book, first published in 1690, cannot be denied. The book's most famous and controversial idea is that the people have a right to overthrow their government if the government fails consistently in its responsibilities and duties.

The book, which lacks an introduction or conclusion, may be challenging for modern readers. Locke's writing covers a wide range of topics; conquest, paternal power (i.e. the power that fathers have over their children), despotical power and his over-arching central concern, property.

The main ideas of the book are that government exists by the consent of the governed who found government for the purpose of securing their lives, rights and property. Locke frequently contrasts people who live in a state of nature (i.e. no government; people enjoy considerable personal freedom) and those that live under government. Under Locke's view of the social contract, men give up give up the unlimited freedom they enjoyed in the state of nature so as to secure their life, limb and property more securely under government. There is also some discussion of the idea of separation of powers; what is interesting here is that Locke does not use the traditional formulation (i.e. executive, legislative, and judicial), rather he discusses executive, legislative and "federative" (by which he means the conduct of self-defense and foreign policy) powers.

The type of government that Locke describes more closely resembles the system employed by Britain and Canada, more than the United States. He conceives of a monarch or prince at the top of the government (as in Britain and Canada; the Monarch is the Head of State), with the legislature representing the people (Parliament) and so on. This is not to deny that this book still holds value for Americans, as other reviewers have pointed out.

All that said, I would not recommend this particular edition of the book. The lack of introduction to put Locke in his historical context can make the book difficult to understand and some of Locke's 17th century references will simply be skipped over by most readers. However, if you simply want a copy of the book that is plain and plan to quote from it, this edition is quite useful. Each paragraph of the book is numbered allowing a researcher to precisely footnote information.

I could not believe how different this book was from what I expected it to be based on professors in politics classes describing Locke. I think they never read this book or were confusing him with someone else. This book is short and sweet, and at the same time a cornerstone for what the world has become in most developed countries. Many ideas in this book were revolutionary in his time (in fact Locke would not let it be known he was the author) but are now so commonplace as to be things observed in any developed country without explaining why. At least the economic ideas could be classified as such; but the ideas of the people overthrowing a tyrant due to horrible ruling is equally revolutionary in monarchies and dictatorships today, and even in poorly governed "democracies" today. A must read.

The Second Treatise on Civil Govenment by John Locke is the foundation of the philosophy with which Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton read and determined to make a cornerstone of our government. This is a most influential essay in the history of political philosophy.

John Locke was an early enlightened thinker and philosopher in England and sought to bring reason and intelligent discussion into civil society. His endeavor to reconstruct the nature and purpose of government, a social contract is proposed. Locke sets out with a purpose, a detailed discussion of how society came to be and the nature of its inception. Locke was associated with powerful scientific minds of the time, one in particular was Robert Boyle.

Locke used Natural Law to define his thoughts. The sociopolitical climate of the seventeenth-century England, at that time was in violent civil war, counter-revolution, restoration, deposition of the monarchy and the subsequent Parliamentry rule with the eventual restoration of the monarchy.

Locke matured as a social philosopher and wrote "Two Treatises of Government" (1690) of which the second is most widely read. Locke's dedication to individual liberty, government by consent, the social contract and the right to revolt against governments that endanger the rights of citizens, has made the legacy of Locke. Later read by the Founding Fathers of the United States, Locke's ideas made an important impression and the fight for freedom began.

This is an important treatise and should be read by all as the foundation of a government by its citizens consent.