philosophy and other ontological occurrences...

philosophers are supposed to love the truth.
not just some but all truth.
big job boy.
now it is impossible to be appraised of every single persons philosophy or their cognitive apprehension and grasp of reality not to mention the admixture of their psychology.
thus academic p is about cases and arguments admixed with abstract logic that is the basis of the computer and everything that it can do.
so.
two paths.
bertrand russell and ovw quine were two that could mix it up.
both topics have become so specialised now that it is very hard to be good at one or the other unless another true genius appeared and they are called forth by the times and unlikely at the moment.
that leaves us ordinary mortals who without real training have to or want to understand what the great thinkers said and when and why.
enter john locke.
died 1704 after a long and chequered career and one of the best and greatest minds of his generation and in the pantheon.
to focus on one philosopher and pick out the one thing tha tyou need to complete your own weltanschaung is very poor philosophy.
the act president jaymee white professes to be in favour of Lockes dictum that government interest in society  should be minimal and as little as possible.
a total blind ally.
a smelly fish even.
a canard.
Locke passed before the first wave of the industrial revolution and exponential advances in technology and population.
that part of his philosophy is false and should be acknowledged as so.
philosophers are like dictators.
if they only read one book and lack diachronic ability then they are doomed to mediocrity and failure.
history is like nature.
it abhors a vacuum.