Author: Curt Doolittle

While you are usually spot on, and I understand where you are coming from, there is a vast difference in Locke’s concept and the ‘postwar’ neo-marxist/postmodern concept of Tabula Rasa. As always the left attempts to adopt and abuse (reframe) terms to suit their purposes in order to create a false sense of legitimacy.

So you are incorrectly criticizing Locke instead of the progressive/neoMarxist abuse of Locke’s term (just as they have abused the term ‘liberal’ suc that we must use the term “classical liberal” to disambiguate.

John Locke’s concept of “tabula rasa” and the post-war Neo-Marxist notion of a “blank slate” as equal in ability serve different philosophical and ideological ends, even if they might appear superficially similar.

Here are some of the key distinctions:

Locke’s Tabula Rasa: Empirical Foundations Source of Knowledge: Locke’s idea of “tabula rasa” is principally concerned with epistemology, or the study of knowledge. According to Locke, all human knowledge comes from experience, and the mind at birth is like a blank slate upon which experience writes.

Individualism and Property: Locke used this concept to argue for individual rights and private property, stating that since individuals acquire knowledge through their experiences and labor, they have rights to their own bodies and the fruits of their labor.

Educational Implications: Locke saw educational and environmental factors as important but did not necessarily argue that everyone would turn out the same under the same conditions. His emphasis was on the potential for rationality and moral agency in all individuals, rather than on equal outcomes.

Not a Statement on Equality of Ability: Locke’s idea does not inherently argue for an innate equality of abilities among humans, but rather an equality of moral worth and potential for knowledge acquisition.

Neo-Marxist Blank Slate: Ideological and Social Objectives:

Social and Economic Equality: The post-war Neo-Marxist notion of the “blank slate” often serves an ideological purpose aimed at supporting social, economic, and political equality. It argues not just for equal moral worth, but for the idea that differences in outcome are the result of social constructs and conditioning rather than innate differences.

Critique of Capitalism: This concept often serves to critique the capitalist system, which Neo-Marxists argue perpetuates inequalities. The idea of humans as blank slates who are equal in ability supports the notion that inequalities are not just unfortunate but unjust, and thus require systemic change.

Collectivism Over Individualism: Unlike Locke, who places emphasis on the individual’s rights and labor, the Neo-Marxist view leans towards collectivism and argues that societal structures play a decisive role in shaping individual outcomes.

Controversial Science: While Locke’s views were very much in line with the science of his time, the Neo-Marxist notion of a blank slate as equal in ability has been criticized for potentially ignoring or underplaying biological factors, including genetics, that could contribute to differences in individual abilities.

Summary
In summary, while both concepts might appear to start from a similar premise that humans are born without innate ideas or social roles, their implications and applications diverge significantly.

Locke’s “tabula rasa” serves as a foundation for individual rights and empirical inquiry into human understanding, whereas the Neo-Marxist concept is often employed towards ideological ends advocating for systemic social change to achieve equality of outcome.

Reply addressees: @NWEurasian @alba_superbus_ @NatLawInstitute @cerflerg @Steve_Sailer @RichardHanania