ABSTRACT
It has been said that for rationalism these laws or fundamental principles of change are 'at some level' necessary because, as we have seen, an 'impure' mechanist in the Cartesian mould need not regard laws as intrinsically necessary, but only as necessary in relation to the nature of God. So an impure mechanist could be a strong rationalist. Conversely Locke, as a 'pure ideal' mechanist, was a weak rationalist: 'weak' because, although he strongly held to a rationalist ontology, he believed that for the most part the necessity intrinsic to all change cannot be known or understood by us. There can be different kinds and degrees
of 'weakness', as of 'impurity'. Locke, as we have seen, believed that we can achieve some fraction of an understanding of necessities, and his sceptical arguments do not rule it out absolutely that some speculative genius should crack the code, achieving angelic or God-like grasp of natural change.
