I Might Like Whitehead’s Locke, but Not Locke

OOP writes:

Locke is generally viewed with disdain in continental circles, but is appreciated by most analytic philosophers. The analytics are right this time. If you don’t already enjoy Locke, read Whitehead’s Process and Reality and the references there will make you start to like him.

Now, admittedly i’ve been dipping into Whitehead and getting something out of it. But god no with Locke. The Essay on Human Understanding gave me the logophobia that Plato and Kant warn against. Whitehead is coffee to Locke’s tepid tea. The latter’s sentences are limp and his insights are pedestrian given his stature. The EHU is interminable and I dare say it’s a good parlor game among empiricists to see how many manage to finish it. I was a TA in a class using this and spent a horrible couple of weeks going through it, making notes and outlines, and generally hating myself for going into a philosophy program. If Larval Subjects is right about jouissance and reading (and he is), then can we also talk about a scholarly death drive that would make one go through this work page by page? 

Now, referring to Gibbon, Larval subjects suggested that was weird. I would nominate this as the choice.