There is no thought of "forbidden fruit" here. In fact, the apple often plays a role in fairy tales: i.e., the poisoned apple given to Snow White. Reality is based on experience. There was no overt sign "Don't eat the apple!" which would have undoubtedly stopped Eve. Locke here does not discuss choice. Leibnitz does. "To choose is to select one alternative and reject the others" (Matson 386). Eve's reality of wanting the apple made her choice clear. As Locke assumes, it was based on previous experience, but it was also based on need. The choice was to eat the extended red apple, clearly in front of her, beckoning her to bite into it, or, the alternative, to turn away and leave hungry or unsatisfied. Leibnitz "admitted and insisted that there really is evil in the world. But, he maintained, it has to exist in order that goodness can be maximized" (Matson 387). However, if we compare the theories of these two philosophers, we come to a far different view of Eve, evil, and human knowledge. Locke explains Eve's reality as based on her experience and the vouchsafing of the apple by the serpent. Leibnitz, if his theory holds up, proves that evil did not exist until Eve ate the apple. Evil, then, is temptation. Until Eve made her choice, rejecting the alternative, good was already maximized.
It is in the theory of something "extended" that we also see a difference between Leibnitz and Locke. Leibnitz claims that "anything extended is essentially complex and