Locke: The First Modest Philosopher?

An interesting seminar which largely touched on the points I made in my last post. But one discussion which really caught my attention was the one on humbleness and modesty.

Locke, in his Epistle to the Reader, acknowledged that many of his beliefs and views may be flawed or indeed, utterly wrong. But he goes on to explain to his readers that every man has the right to his own beliefs, and that he should not be criticised for publishing his own, which may be in conflict with others'.

I think this is rather significant. Locke may well be one of the first philosophers to publically acknowledge the possibility of flaws in his ideas. Previously, I think they tended to see themselves as almost 'Divine Beings', acting rather like prophets and spreading their views as the views of God Himself. Inevitably, contradictions would occur in their workings, but I get the impression that they would simply try to gloss over these inconsistencies, perhaps citing them as the complexities of the universe that God created.

For example, I could point to George Berkeley's theory in primary and secondary qualities. He effectively described these as being our perception of the senses, relating them to 'perceived space'. But where he becomes vague, is in his explanation of 'perceived space' itself. How do we define his definition?

At this point, I would return to Locke, himself not being altogether consistent with his ideas. For example, the four metaphysical proofs in which he believed can contradict each other, such as the ontological proof, (the theory in physicality and being), opposing the eternal truths, (the truth of essence, rather than existence).

And yet one of the fundamental differences between these two philosophers, is Locke's confession as to such imperfections in his ideas right at the beginning of his book. Does this make him the first truly modest, modern philosopher? It is true to say that he may have only stated this to cover his own back, having originally only intended the book to be read by close friends, but I think there is more to it than that.

To conclude, I would quote my favourite statement in the Epistle; one that epitimises what I believe to be his humble nature:
'The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity:... it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little'.