Abstract

Locke proposes a theory of qualities based on a distinction between qualities that resemble the idea we have of them and those that do not. I will begin by interpreting Locke’s theory of primary and secondary qualities, distinguishing between phenomenal and non-phenomenal primary qualities, and showing that it is most sensible to interpret Locke’s claim that bodies do not really have secondary qualities as another way of saying that our ideas of secondary qualities do not resemble the qualities. I will then interpret and defend Strawson’s response to Locke as a demonstration that no primary qualities are phenomenal primary qualities, showing that statement to be equivalent to the conclusion that we do not perceive objects the way they really are. I will finally suggest that, if Strawson’s response does indeed require something in Locke’s theory to be altered, that thing is the principle of economy of explanation.