ABSTRACT
What, then, is the philosophical interest of all this for us today? It is tempting to answer, 'not much', on the grounds that the distance is too great between Locke's presuppositions and the insights which direct credible present-day approaches to intentionality and thought. Certainly, recent philosophy of mental representation tends to assign much more importance to language and behaviour, and much less reality or, at least, independence to conscious experience and thought than Locke did. To put it less neutrally, an exaggerated respect for the role of language and action in determining or constituting the content of thought, and a contempt, at least questionable, for consciousness now pervades philosophical theory. That Locke stood at the opposite extreme supplies one good reason for taking his arguments seriously.
