Locke and Burke

While reading Locke's essay “Concerning Human Understanding”, I was continually reminded of Burke's "Equipment for Living." On Locke's tenth point in particular, I was reminded of our previous reading: "

Locke says, "Our good or evil depending not on their decrees, we may safely be ignorant of their notions: and therefore in the reading of hem, if they do not use their words with a due clearness and perspicuity, we may lay them aside, and without any injury done them, resolve thus with ourselves" (820). 

Throughout his essay, Locke stresses that since words are used to represent knowledge, and knowledge is meant to represent universal truths, words fail in their functions because they do not refer back to perfect truths. Previous to the quoted statement above, Locke explains that many ancient writings (i.e. the Bible) have established rules in society due to their proximity to truthfulness. If we're punished for transgressing those words, then the words become truths. They are shaping how we live our lives and therefore must be steps on our road to the great universal truth. It seems to be that the truth Locke is searching for is a kind of God. Words' imperfections mainly exist in man's inability to see and understand all the implied and invisible components of words. This causes their truths to be obscured, and truths are important because they give man a standard of living; they tell him how to properly live his life and whether or not he is living that life correctly in comparison to "the truth" or perhaps, God. 

In the above quoted statement, Locke suggests that the ancient writings that don't clearly attempt to get at these truths are unimportant to us and can be discarded safely. This is reminding of Burke in the sense of eliminating texts based on their usefulness.

I blogged earlier on Burke and commented on how I had a problem with how he suggested we compare the usefulness of texts, and based on what we find, rank those that will be better tools in everyday life. Locke appears to be suggesting something similar. Since certain ancient writings' meanings cannot be determined  today in our societies (Burke would also agree with works being tied to their societies), they should be eliminated from the pile of possible writings that could aid in finding the truth or God. 

Both Burke and Locke appear to suggest that some writings have better use than others, but they differ on why they want to rank texts. Burke thinks of tools that can be used in everyday situations. Locke is looking at the bigger picture. He believes texts should be ranked based on their contribution to the universal good. I wonder if contributing to the universal good can also be helpful in everyday life? If Locke is suggesting we should be more efficient in our search for the "truth", and the truth is a standard which will make man exist at his best at all times of the day, then are Burke and Locke's reasoning behind the importance of ranking the same?