Oh, wow. I didn't actually expect an essay about John Locke and his proposal theorem about our sense and interaction of this external world.
I honestly wouldn't say much of "wow, that was good" or "huh, I don't get what you mean" because that would take... A lot of time. See, I'm the type of person who even eat the last crumbs of the bread even if it means licking the floor (not literally).
I honestly had no idea who John Locke was, until now when I saw Atticus's review stating that the Constitution was inspired by this man (SO EMBARRASSED AS AN AMERICAN ARGHHHH) but you're "history lesson" in the first few paragraphs were informative! Personally, I found this catchy (haha I'm a nerd I guess) for you to put some background information about the Essay.
As you talk about the Essay, as heard Locke's ideologies about our senses and objects are caused by our awareness of objects in the external world. However, I love how you also mentioned the issues of Locke's ideas can be countered and disproved. Senses eventually are affected by our cognitions and in the end, are merely illusions.
Thinking about the egg, it is possible this cream-coloured egg may have a different taste. Saying that we gave both people the same egg (to be accurate, the most similar) of the same quality to make scrambled eggs, surely, there will be multiple people saying several reactions. So that's why I find the idea of an "real egg" so bizarre-- everyone has different perspectives, ideas, and cognitive abilities, so is it really possible to find the right standard.
We also have standards too, as gourmet organizations and other companies have made their standards upon food too. But what if one sense's abilities are weaker, as we grow older? Several elderly or people of age cannot easily differenciate strongz reactive tastes such as salty and sweet (I know this from my grandma, sorry granny).
Or perhaps the idea of a glass of water. Some may say it's half full or half empty, but eventually, that all leads to our cognition. We know most sense originate from a neurological origin. Eventually, I like how Locke's idea ends with there being a world which an object is judged objectively-- but do you ever wonder how the egg would look objectively?
Our senses may be considered objective, however, they actually are subjective. A mere stimuli that our brain processes an information. I may find that chilli pepper not-so-spicy but some people may feel as if they just swallowed the sun and living an actual hell. I may feel sad simply looking at the rains, which is also a cognitive illusion— as some people do not feel melancholy from the raining, gloomy weather. Describing a weather itself gloomy itself is subjective in the first place, as that's our brain possibly thinking the weather is dark, but if objective, how would it look?
In the end, mostly everything is subjective. Although we make a standard, we must remember that our standards are mostly subjective. Therefore, our Brian's are subjective and to obtain the "true objective" informations, we must lose a part of our humaness, whether if that means our brain, mentions, and several other factors that makes me the standard of a normal human. To be honest, what even makes a human in the first place?
I loved ranting after reading this essay. I might have said a few wrong things (because I read this in night and wrote the review then continued it in the morning after sleeping), and I love if anyone would debate against or correct me if I made a contradicting claim. Thank you for the essay. This was Kelisot.