ID_ 5268199.pdf - ID 5268199 Professor Gordon-Roth TA...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.

ID: 5268199 Professor Gordon-Roth TA Heather Johnson PHIL 3005W 20 April 2018 Catharine Trotter-Cockburn Decimates The Remarker In this paper, I will intend to get clear on Catharine Trotter-Cockburn’s defense of Locke’s Essay of Human Understanding. I will present the Remarker’s objections to Locke and Catharine Trotter-Cockburn’s replies, furthering Locke’s view. In the end, I will demonstrate that Catharine Trotter-Cockburn’s defense of Locke’s essay is satisfactory. The Remarker begins with an objection about the soul. They say that the soul may sometimes be absolutely without thoughts of any kind and since God is omnipotent, He can grant power to think and conceive of ideas to any system of matter at any point in time. Upon these two assumptions, the Remarker cannot determine a proof for the immortality of the soul (Atherton 129). Trotter-Cockburn responds by saying that proofs for the immortality of the soul based upon of the soul is always thinking can lead to inaccuracy of the characterization of the soul, “it is ever so clearly proved, that thinking is necessary to the soul’s existence, that can no more prove, that it shall always exist, than it proves that it has always existed” (Atherton 129). Trotter-Cockburn is saying that just because we can see the soul is thinking, does not help prove the immortality of the soul, and she says that there is more to the soul than just thoughts. Next, the Remarker is concerned because in Locke’s work they had have not been able to confirm a proof for the immortality of the soul in waking and sleeping moments. In sleep, people are not conscious of thinking and people that are awake are always conscious of their thoughts
(Atherton 130). Trotter-Cockburn responds by saying that Locke’s goal was not to design a proof for the immortality of the soul. She goes onto say that the Remarker is confounding the terms man, soul, and person. Trotter-Cockburn alludes to the fact the Remarker thinks all of these terms means the same things, when, in fact, for Locke, they all have different meanings, “if Mr.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture