Locke vs. Johnson

In considering our discussion today, of Locke and Johnson and their receptions to reading, I wanted to continue the debate over who is more optimistic about the ability of mankind to reason and arrive at correct and truthful conclusions. First, let us consider Locke’s evidence concerning reading and readership: “Those who have read of every thing are thought to understand every thing too ; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment.” Here, Locke claims that the mere act of reading does not necessarily improve one’s knowledge or one’s mind, as we can see through the example of Arabella. However, as Locke point outs, Arabella’s flaw is that she does not think about what she has read, she takes it at face value rather than seeing it as fiction or romance. However, Locke notes that we are of ‘ruminating kind’ who must chew things over in order to digest the meaning of a work. Locke does not say that all classes of people have the ability to do this, however, and considering his ‘tabula rasa,’ one needs the proper foundation to have any reason at all. 

Turning attention to Johnson, Rambler Number 4, let us consider his argument as well: “But the fear of not being approved as just copyers of human manners, is not the most important concern that an author of this sort ought to have before him. These books are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introductions into life. They are the entertainment of minds unfurnished with ideas, and therefore easily susceptible of impressions; not fixed by principles, and therefore easily following the current of fancy; not informed by experience, and consequently open to every false suggestion and partial account.” Although on the surface this seems to be a negative critique, Johnson’s underlying meaning must be ascertained. Although saying that much of the masses are young, ignorant and idle who would take this literature as a realistic guide to life, such as Arabella does with her French Romances, he appeals to a much broader audience of people to be targeting.

 However, it seems that Johnson feels these minds are easily penetrated with ideas, he seems to feel that the mind is more malleable than Locke who believes the foundation is the key to arriving at the correct ‘truth.’ Johnson is much more concerned with the guidance a person can be given, despite age or social status. He does not see their prior learning, or lack thereof, to have ingrained principles into them, unlike Locke. His comment on the ‘current of fancy’ might seem to at first have a negative connotation but the ability to take in, process and choose is implied here, whereas Locke discounts it entirely if the foundation is not built or built correctly. From this, it seems that Johnson’s theory could lend just as usefully to examining Arabella as Ross’s assertion that Lockian theory does. Johnson’s ideas would even paint her in a more favorable light, that she could be changed and guided, which is what we as readers hope, versus Locke basically saying that she is a broken record for which there is no fix.