The concept of labor as a means to claim property has long fascinated philosophers, from the practical insights of John Locke to the metaphysical depths of Aristotle. At its core lies an assumption: when someone invests their effort into something—like cultivating an apple tree—they gain a right to it, not just legally but in a deeper, almost cosmic sense. This right might carry a “metaphysical gravity” or “momentum,” a weight born of their energy shaping the world. A related assumption emerges: this gravity intensifies when the laborer’s vision, their “higher why,” guides their work, as opposed to mere physical toil. To explore this, we’ll weave together Locke’s labor theory, Aristotle’s metaphysics, and the biblical parable of the talents, using an apple tree as our lens.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government (Chapter V, §27), argues that property arises when individuals mix their labor with nature’s raw materials. He writes, “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and thereby makes it his property.”
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government (Chapter V, §27), argues that individuals have a natural right to property when they mix their labor with resources from nature, transforming them into something of value, such as cultivating land or harvesting fruit. He posits that this labor, an extension of the person, creates ownership, as it imbues the resource with the individual’s effort and intention, making it rightfully theirs. However, Locke sets limits, stating that one can only claim property if there’s enough left for others and the resource isn’t wasted, ensuring a balance between personal gain and communal good.
Imagine a person tending an apple tree—pruning branches, harvesting fruit. Their effort transforms the tree from a wild thing into a productive one, embedding their personal essence into it. This act, for Locke, justifies ownership, as labor extends the self into the external world, creating a tangible claim.
Yet, Locke’s view hints at a broader principle: nature abhors a vacuum. An unclaimed tree, like an empty space, invites energy to fill it. When a laborer invests time and sweat, they inject purpose into this void, shaping the tree into something distinctly theirs. This aligns with the assumption that labor—especially purposeful labor—carries a metaphysical momentum, a force that binds the worker to their creation. The tree, once neutral, now bears the imprint of their will, suggesting a right beyond mere possession—a relational resonance between person and property.
Aristotle, in contrast, offers a metaphysical lens that elevates this idea. In Metaphysics (Book IX, 1048a) and Nicomachean Ethics (VI.4), he emphasizes telos (purpose) and energeia (actuality)—a thing’s essence lies in its fulfilled potential. For Aristotle, labor isn’t just physical; it’s the rational pursuit of a good. A master craftsman tending the apple tree, envisioning it as part of a thriving orchard, engages in technē—craft guided by wisdom. Their “higher why” shapes the tree’s destiny, giving their labor a metaphysical gravity that mere toil lacks. The tree’s flourishing reflects their vision, not just their hands, making their effort and labor hierarchically superior.
This distinction raises another assumption: if vision is labor, then a master craftsman’s claim to the tree might hierarchically outweigh a journeyman’s, who simply follows orders. Aristotle’s Physics (II.3) prioritizes the final cause—the purpose (telos)—as defining a thing’s being. The craftsman’s intellectual labor, planning and directing, actualizes the tree’s telos, while the journeyman’s physical effort is a means to that end. When integrated with Locke, this suggests that vision, as a form of labor, mixes the self with the tree in a profound way, amplifying its metaphysical weight.
The Gospel parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) adds a moral dimension. A master gives three servants talents: five, two, and one. The first two double theirs through effort, while the third buries his, fearing failure. The master rewards the active servants and takes the buried talent, giving it to the one with ten. This echoes Locke: those who labor—investing energy into what’s entrusted—earn their reward. The fruitful servants’ actions fill a vacuum of potential, their metaphysical momentum aligning with the master’s intent, while the third’s inaction leaves an emptiness, a failure to claim through labor, which the master corrects.
Aristotle’s lens enriches this further. The first two servants embody a “higher why,” seeing the talents’ purpose and pursuing it with phronesis (practical wisdom). Their labor—mental and practical—actualizes potential, giving it metaphysical gravity. The third servant’s burial, though, doesn’t inherently create a vacuum that pulls the talent elsewhere; rather, it’s a void of purpose, a lack of energeia. The master’s redistribution reflects a principle: energy flows to those who fulfill telos. In the apple tree context, a visionary laborer’s effort—guided by purpose—claims it more fully than a passive one’s neglect.
Now, consider hired workers tending the tree under a visionary’s direction. Locke might say their physical labor stakes a claim, but if they’re agents of the visionary’s will—paid to execute a plan—their effort transfers to the one with the “higher why.” Aristotle agrees: the visionary’s final cause, their intellectual labor, defines the tree’s essence. The workers’ toil, like a journeyman’s, has momentum, but the master craftsman’s vision carries greater gravity, filling the vacuum of unclaimed potential with directed energy. The tree becomes theirs metaphysically, its flourishing tied to their purpose.
This synthesis addresses another assumption: does vision outweigh physical labor when split between parties? Locke’s proxy labor and Aristotle’s priority of purpose suggest yes—if the visionary actively shapes the outcome. A distant overseer, merely paying others, risks a weaker claim; their energeia must engage the tree, not just their wallet. The master craftsman who plans and oversees, blending vision with action, imprints the tree more deeply than workers alone, their “higher why” resonating through every apple.
The “nature abhors a vacuum” concept ties this together. An untended tree, like the buried talent, sits dormant—a blank slate. Labor—physical or visionary—injects energy, filling that void with personal essence. For Locke, this is mixing sweat with soil; for Aristotle, it’s actualizing telos. The master craftsman’s “higher why” as labor accelerates this, their metaphysical momentum outstripping rote effort. The tree, once wild, becomes a testament to their will, its fruit bearing their mark.
This metaphysical gravity isn’t static—it’s a dynamic force. The parable’s fruitful servants, Locke’s industrious laborer, and Aristotle’s purposeful craftsman all suggest that labor, especially with vision, builds momentum. So, in this integrated framework, the “higher why” and vision are a form of labor—intellectual, purposeful, and metaphysically potent. Locke grounds it in personal effort; Aristotle lifts it to the level of essence and actuality. The master craftsman’s claim trumps the journeyman’s claim not because of status, but because their labor—vision included—more fully realizes the tree’s telos, giving it a deeper, heavier imprint. The apple tree’s story—cultivated by a master, worked by hands—reflects this: ownership isn’t just legal but existential, a bond forged by energy flowing into emptiness. The “higher why” amplifies this claim, its weight felt in the tree’s very being.
In conclusion, the apple tree stands as a microcosm of labor’s power. Locke grounds it in effort, Aristotle elevates it with purpose, and the parable moralizes it with faithfulness. Together, they affirm that labor—especially visionary labor—creates property with metaphysical depth. Nature’s aversion to vacuums invites this imprint, and those with a “higher why” wield a gravity that shapes the world, their momentum echoing through what they touch, be it talents or trees.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
