No one can deny the huge role language plays in our lives, but at the very same time, a lot of us take it’s basis for granted. We never even consider breaking it down, the different kinds of words, where they come from, why we use them, what they really mean. It’s a whole system we learn as children, take for face value and move on. And ye, language, not just the ability to make noise, is what separates us from animals, it is the most important element we possess as a race. In chapters I though IV of book III, Locke breaks down language to its most simple of forms and builds upon this foundation. Ultimately as he states in chapter II, words mean nothing but the ideas to which we assign them, they are the tools that man use in order to get the invisible ideas floating around out of his head and into the world. It is not the words that have meaning; they mean nothing without the ideas. But his major focus lays in general ideas, because this isn’t as simple as particulars, assigning a certain word to a certain thing, this is giving a whole array of similar things a common identity.
And then there is the particularly interesting part in which he analyzes the difference between real and nominal essences of beings. The idea of “essence” has been a reoccurring theme in the works of Descartes, Spinoza, and now Locke. It was important when trying to prove the existence of God, but Locke brings it down to the world around us. According to him there is both real and nominal essences, Real, being the intrinsic value, and nominal pertaining to its observable properties. And yet, despite what we would assume differentiation to be based off of (the real essence), it is based off nominal essence. He goes on to state “species that are distinguished by their real ideas [are] useless” (Locke, 186). This may seem backwards, but after reading through point seventeen we come to realize that the basis of words is solely what we perceive, this is what he had laid out in his previous chapters. Words, general terms, they rely on the characteristics things posses, and then also privation. Cold is the absence of heat; man is what the particular “Joe” lacks. This is a turn from Descartes who could and would not rely on his senses as a connection to reality.
Words need ideas to gain meaning; it's an idea that makes perfect sense. We see it today; people come up with new ideas and words consequently are made up to name them. (With Thanksgiving in mind) I'll never forget when I first heard of the "Turducken." I had no clue what that meant, because it was a relatively new word/idea, until I looked it up.
ReplyDeleteI love how Locke breaks down not only his philosophy but the tools in which we use to convey his philosophy and ideas in general. Things we take for granted IE sound and sight; things we are born with make sense of the things around us. Given this, once these things are recognized the fun begins. First the essence of the ‘thing’ and the qualities that make it what it is?
ReplyDeleteI think of trying to describe a color to a blind man, when I think how useful and how important language is. The speaker and the listener must already have a certain common intellect in order to understand the concepts involved. Reds are rosy and blues being mellow make absolutely no sense when taken literally but help to describe the unique qualities provided the language is used to describe both the abstract and absurd.
He certainly dissects language to show that it is not only a mean to communicate sounds but also a display of complex and defined ideas. This is to be primordial to complement our roles as social individuals by allowing us to transfer our thoughts from one mind to another. Basically on an stratified order sounds form words, words from sentences and a group of sentences become a concept or an idea. There is also a clear differentiation on the source of our ideas. Stating that general terms, which can represent many things, in consequence stagnate to become general ideas. And in the same analog way, particular terms become particular ideas.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this is extremely relevant. Relevance debt to the necessity we all have to communicate accurately and correctly. Too often we tend to believe that because we communicate distinctively, and we are saying it like we want to, that message is already safe from misinterpretation. Many words can mean many things. And the way we build our arguments and ideas should always contain some level of consideration for the person or persons that we are directing our messages. Know your audience. But i do believe that if we care to choose our words, the chances to communicate clearly will increase. Words are the building blocks for our ideas.
I think that the representative nature of language is often problematic, and the fact that it even works at all is something akin to a miracle. If I say to someone, "My friends Bill and Ted have a dog named Sue," then everyone will picture something, but it is unlikely that any two people will be picturing the same dog. For some people, Sue will be a chihuahua, but for others he might be a labrador. And while this seems like a trivial example, the fact that we can have conversations at all when this surely happens so regularly is amazing.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that gets me about Locke is that if words represent ideas, but we have very different complex ideas from person to person, then the same word is representing two different ideas to two different people. And how does that even work?
While reading through Locke’s BookIII/chapter II Of the significance of words, some of the first things I thought of were the functions of poets, singers, speech writers, and even attorneys with regards to the usage of language. Each one of these practitioners relies heavily on the signification principles of words that Locke discusses in this work. To each of these disciplines, words are indeed ‘sensible signs necessary for communication (178)’ used to express ideas of the author, as well as having the intention of sparking reference and idea in the minds of other individuals. When communication by an orator such as a poet or speechwriter is deemed unsuccessful, the cause is quite often attributable to ‘words being used without signification’. I like how Locke describes the suboptimal focus on words for the sake of themselves, as opposed to relating them to ideas and their application, as ‘nothing but so much insignificant noise (179).’ It also makes me wonder how he would view the current metaphorical and lyrical nature of some of today’s pop and rap music. A good deal of today’s music goes to great length to expound on the metaphorical tradition, attempting to excite ideas of connection in the target audience. These connections are arbitrary and not necessarily shared, and may be classified as unclear to those not familiar with the particular interpretational experience of the lyrics of that musical form. With that said, perhaps artists such as Lil Wayne or Britney Spears may want to read up on Locke, and throw in a few more ‘general terms’. Who knows, it may help their record sales.
ReplyDeleteAlthough language can be problematic it is the most important tool that bridges ideas to the physical world. I would personally agree with Locke over Spinoza or Descartes that the senses are an extremely valuable asset, even though they sometimes (but rarely) deceive us. The very concept of these complex and simple ideas, we would not be able to break it down with out language and the senses.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Oscars question about how words express ideas is the very concept of general ideas that he delves into so deeply. Creating these broad definitions, with certain characteristics but not possessing others. For example, when saying Sue, you would think dog, and not everyone instantly thinks of a type of dog, but would then go on to say "why kind of dog?" cause it invokes the thought of a general in search of a particular.