of John Locke Especially for the BY SISTER MARY LOUISE CUFF, M. A. A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Catholic Sisters College of the Catholic of the Requirements for the Degree WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE, 1920 Students and admirers of the educational theory of John Locke have long recognized its very marked limitations. Later educators like Herbert Spencer have occasionally singled out some of them for drastic treatment, but the points chosen for criticism have referred for the most part to special phases of his theory. Locke's striking views on the physical care of the child were quickly seen to be of limited power of application, but the principles and methods which he proposed for the moral and intellectual training of the child have not been as often nor as thoroughly examined. The purpose of this dissertation is to expound Locke's theory in all its important aspects and to criticize it in the light of modern educational science, indicating what are its limitations on the physical, intellectual and moral side and from the Christian viewpoint. Although the writer has been solicitous to show how impossible it is for the Christian teacher to be content with what Locke offers, yet she has not lost her admiration for the noble endeavor of the philosopher to secure for those for whom he wrote an education that would be at least a training, a discipline, and a fit preparation for life's demands. The writer acknowledges her indebtedness to her professors in the Catholic University of America, especially Doctors McCormick, Shields, Pace, Healy and the Rt. Rev. William Turner, D.D., now Bishop of Buffalo, under whom she pursued her graduate studies. She also expresses her gratitude for valuable assistance and courtesies extended by the Librarians of the Catholic University of America and the United States Bureau of Education. March 27, 1920. CRITICISM OF LOCKE'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL TRAINING. (1) From the standpoint of Genetic Psychology and in the light of the conflicting empirical and rationalistic tendencies of his philosophy. (2) Criticism of the soundness of his Theory on the separation of Mind and Body and his disre- gard of hereditary powers and tendencies. 5 |