John Locke: The “Jocose Problem” and the Theoretical Foundation of Toleration

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211070320
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Political Research Quarterly

2023, Vol. 76(1) 107–118

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211070320

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

John Locke: The “Jocose Problem”and the

Theoretical Foundation of Toleration

Rafael Major

1



Abstract

Two years after the publication of Locke’sAn Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sought advice from his Irish

friend, William Molyneux, concerning improvements for the second edition. This discussion resulted in the most

substantial alterations of the Essay. Among these changes, Molyneux proposed a “Jocose Problem”—a 17th Century

“brain-teaser”—concerning the ability of a formerly blind person to recognize the simple difference between the

appearance of a cube and a sphere. Molyneux’s jocose riddle eventually awakened “the greatest philosophic interest”and

became the “common center”of attention for 18th Century thinkers like Berkeley, Voltaire, and Diderot (Cassirer 1951,

108-9). The following is meant to reintroduce Molyneux’s Problem by suggesting its origin in the thought of Thomas

Hobbes and its bearing on the role of religion in public life. After examining Molyneux’s Problem and its importance for

understanding the Essay, I conclude with a brief comparison to Locke’sLetter Concerning Toleration in order to stress its

bearing on theoretical and practical considerations for a wide range of political scientists.

Keywords

Molyneux, Locke, Hobbes, religious toleration, politics and perception

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is a foun-

dational document for our contemporary understanding of

empiricism, epistemology, and cognitive psychology.

1

John Locke also intended for the Essay to have a practical

effect and made a sustained effort if subtle effort to

connect his abstract studies to political life.

2

In particular,

he suggests that the Essay contains his deepest theoretical

justif‌ication for toleration, and especially for religious

toleration (Epistle p. 13-4, II.1.9, III.9.21, IV.3.22,

IV.16.4, IV.18.1–11). Identifying and analyzing this

fundamental 17

th

Century argument is again relevant in

the 21

st

Century because today the status or basis of

toleration is under stress. In addition to the obvious po-

litical evidence of a rise in intolerance around the globe,

Jürgen Habermas has pointed out a general attitude of

“defeatism”among western intellectuals who have lost

conf‌idence in the central pillar of modern liberalism.

3

Not

long ago we could take for granted that there was a

consensus that toleration was both the best protection for a

diversity of religious views, and the best guarantor of the

freedom of belief and conscience for everyone else too. It

is imperative to revisit the roots of the arguments for

toleration in an effort to judge for ourselves the underlying

source of the older conf‌idence and whether the current

“defeatism”is justif‌ied.

4

It is not enough to point to the

practical threats of an authoritarian drift among both re-

ligious and secular citizens. Just as it was the case for

Locke, it is incumbent on 21

st

intellectuals to give reasons

for political preferences and this makes the Essay more

relevant than it seemed only a generation ago.

Among the proponents of toleration whose arguments

helped shape the modern liberal world, (e.g., Spinoza,

Hobbes, Montesquieu) Locke is most immediately ac-

cessible. His Letter Concerning Toleration is almost

exclusively focused on religious toleration and civil order,

and this in combination with its short length, make it the

most studied text on the subject. It continues to be as-

signed in undergraduate classrooms, and indeed several of

its central political arguments on behalf of toleration are

known to many citizens who have never come into contact

with the original source. In essence, without peace, neither

civil liberty nor religious liberty are secure. According to

Locke, religious differences are not the source of political

1

University of North Texas, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Rafael Major, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #310529

Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA.

Email: Rafael@unt.edu