"Locke's philosophy, as it appears in the 'Essay', has throughout certain merits and demerits. Both alike were useful: the demerits are such only from a THEORETICAL standpoint. He is always sensible, and always willing to sacrifice logic rather than become paradoxical. He enunciates general principles which, as the reader can hardly fail to perceive, are capable of leading to strange consequences; but whenever the strange consequences seem about to appear, Locke blandly refrains from drawing them. To a logician this is irritating; to a practical man, it is a proof of a sound judgment. Since the world is what it is, it is clear that valid reasoning from sound principles cannot lead to err; but a principle may be so nearly true as to deserve theoretical respect, and yet may lead to practical consequences which we feel to be absurd. There is therefore a justification for common sense in philosophy, but only as showing that our theoretical principles cannot be quite correct so long as their consequences are condemned by an appeal to common sense which we feel to be irresistible. The theorist may retort that common sense is no more infallible than logic. But this retort, though made by Berkeley and Hume, would have been wholly foreign to Locke's intellectual temper."

여기서 글쓴이가 "The theorist may retort that common sense is no more infallible than logic. But this retort, though made by Berkeley and Hume, ..." 라고 말할때

글쓴이가 말하고자하는 바가 뭐임?

"버클리와 흄같은 theorist들은 상식이 틀릴수도 있다라고 주장할것이다"라는 말임 아니면 대체 뭔 말이여