Locke, Human Understanding

 Using Cliff's notes, of course.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/e/an-essay-concerning-human-understanding/about-an-essay-concerning-human-understanding

It has done much to shape the course of intellectual development, especially in Europe and America, ever since it was first published in 1690.

 I no longer believe ideas shape culture. I must ask: why was this idea adopted, instead of another? Why did their pope buy this idea at the idea store? Persuasiveness can be ruled out. Ref: the internet. There's the Homestuck principle: all sorts of ideas are bubbling around, you can do whatever you want through simple selection. In theory there's always the potential for radical change. Yet the ideas adopted are always exactly what you would expect in retrospect. "Ah, of course it had to be that one." Ironically Cliff himself accidentally explains in full.

 Few books have ever been written that have so adequately represented the spirit of an age

 Locke said what everyone was already thinking. The exact opposite of innovation or even inquiry.
 Cultures become Atheist, therefore adopt Christianity. Cultures become Communist Despotisms, and therefore adopt Locke. 

 Christianity and Islam are clearly differently effective. We can argue about which one works better, and whether it has flip flopped, but it's clear one is simply better. Does this drive conversion? On the contrary, it drives greater isolation and division. Persuasion, especially logical persuasion, is not a factor.
 Turns out poverty and ignorance is exactly what Muslims demand. Working as intended. Al-Islam means submission, and now they have to submit to their geopolitical neighbours. An opportunity: they can demonstrate to Allah how very submissive they are. (They're not very good at it, hence the practice.) 

 If a philosopher's ideas would make a member of a culture change their behaviour (ref: Last Psych), then the philosopher is simply rejected. Philosophers exist so that cultures may be wrong more vigorously. They wish to pursue their falsehoods precisely, coherently, sharply. Without fuzziness and contamination. 

 

 I jump ahead a bit, but Locke accidentally said something correct. "Virginia Declaration of Rights: namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

 Therefore, Jefferson and Franklin simply rejected that part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness#Lockean_roots_hypothesis

  Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in playing down the protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found the property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance ["civil"] society.

 Did you catch on that? Property as merely a social construct, lol. Woke Founders, lmao. Franklin self-consciously created a crime syndicate, declaring explicitly that taxation (robbery) is contrary to property rights. As it must be: the point was parasitism, all these "rights" and "amendments" nonsense was just that: optics nonsense. Performative, not dogmatic. 

 (Civil society. Lie, or truth? Is taxation uncivilized? Or does [civilization] mean nothing more than organized banditry? The reason statesmen get so worked up about dressing well and smelling nice is that it's so easy to confuse them with criminal outlaws living innawoods...) 

 

 Before Locke, the ideas weren't in words. After Locke, they were in words...so they could realize the [property] thing was a sham and get rid of it.
 That's why you put things in words, haha! Englishmen thought they lionized property, but it turns out they were wrong about their own thoughts. Whew, what a relief. They really had themselves going for a bit there. 

 Culture demands that truth submit to it. Therefore, I reject culture, that I may embrace the truth.