book 2, chapter 33

"Something unreasonable in most men. There is scarce any one that does not observe something that seems odd to him, and is in itself really extravagant, in the opinions, reasonings, and actions of other men. The least flaw of this kind, if at all different from his own, every one is quick-sighted enough to espy in another, and will by the authority of reason forwardly condemn; though he be guilty of much greater unreasonableness in his own tenets and conduct, which he never perceives, and will very hardly, if at all, be convinced of."

Locke seems like he's trying to expalain that men have a flaw in picking apart themselves. At least how i percieved it. Women seem to pick apart themselves and over analyze their actions, personalities and apperance. Men however seem to give little attention when compared to women.


"Another instance. A man receives a sensible injury from another, thinks on the man and that action over and over, and by ruminating on them strongly, or much, in his mind, so cements those two ideas together, that he makes them almost one; never thinks on the man, but the pain and displeasure he suffered comes into his mind with it, so that he scarce distinguishes them, but has as much an aversion for the one as the other. Thus hatreds are often begotten from slight and innocent occasions, and quarrels propagated and continued in the world."

Another concept of men and their thought process, men seem to combine a tragic event and the person whom inflicted the harm as one. Feelings and emotions are later on ruptured when the thought or sight of the same person who previously inflicted the emotion or pain.

A third instance. A man has suffered pain or sickness in any place; he saw his friend die in such a room: though these have in nature nothing to do one with another, yet when the idea of the place occurs to his mind, it brings (the impression being once made) that of the pain and displeasure with it: he confounds them in his mind, and can as little bear the one as the other.

This seems to be a common issue in contemporary times, people are scared of rooms or places where people have died.

Locke. book 2, chapter 31

I don't quite understand Locke's definition of adequate. He breaks ideas into two groups. One seems to be "simple" depending on archtype and the other "a partial or incomplete representation of those archetypes". What is the difference between ideas being adequate or ideas of substances. I believe all educated ideas have substance to them simple or not. I feel Descartes was a little more clear when it came to concepts and ideas that were new to a reader.