What I wanted to say to Ramus, but which also applies to Whately

Whately presents rhetoric as an "offshoot of logic." Google defines offshoot as a "a side shoot or branch on a plant." I am aware that the definition has probably changed since the nineteenth century, but if I am interpreting this right, Whately considers rhetoric to be a sub-discipline of logic. This doesn't sound right to me.

So many rhetorical theorists concern themselves with finding exactly what practices fit into the realm of rhetoric, as well as finding where rhetoric belongs in relation to other fields. Is it a part of philosophy? or is philosophy a part of it? Does logic belong inside or outside of the rhetorical discipline? Are all five canons belonging to rhetoric and rhetoric only?

Trying to sort all of this out seems like a big waste of time to me.

If rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing well, (the definition I prefer) then it is obvious that rhetors and rhetoricians will have relationships with many other practices and disciplines. Try giving a speech to thousands of people which contains nothing but logical arguments. You would have them either snoring or booing within first two minutes. Try giving a speech to the same group of people, using the absolute best methods of delivery, but no meaningful content. You'll see a lot of crooked eyebrows. Try giving them sob story after sob story in an attempt to rattle their emotions. You might have them crying, but if that's your only content, you'll have a confused lot when they dry their eyes.

My point in all of this, is that if you want to be  a good rhetor, you better be good at all of these things. Whately was right in that logical arguments are crucial to the rhetor. But they are not the end all be all of rhetoric, unless your aim is to put the reader or audience to sleep.

  

Locke it Up!

One of the reasons Locke finds fault in language is due to its duplicity in meaning, relating to the indiviudal person and how they have formed that complex idea through their own history and relations. He also seems to have the idea that most people only have a vague definition of these words, defined by their experience, and that idea is usually changing as they come into contact with people different signification for that idea. He writes, "these moral words are in most men's mouths little more than bare sounds, or when they have any, it is for the most part but a very loose and undetermined, and consequently, obscure and confused signifcation" (819). Later on in the essay he blames rhetoric for being empty of meaning, using eloquence and passion to distort the truth and convince another person of an argument through illogical means. 

The two problems I see with Locke's argument is his denial of the importance of kairos and moments and his exclusion of sensation into transfusion of ideas. First, with kairos and moments, we see that Locke has a view that the world and correspondingly, ideas, are constantly changing and language cannot do ideas justice, because the user of that idea is flawed to begin with, constantly changing and modifying their idea. This idea is then impermanent and of no value. There is truth to his statement, but that doesn't mean that words and ideas will be forever abandoned once put on the page or spoken. Ideas have a way of recycling and coming back up throughout history. At some points for example, what Aristotle writes is not supported by the current climate and culture of the country, but then fifty years later as new politics and ideas are brought up, his notion of subjectivity and reason is brought back into light. Meeting and writing in these moments gain more significance if we realize that they are not instantly destroyed after realization, but modified and reexamined later when the idea has corresponding meaning to a current idea. What this seems to impart is that the audience and people of a time are most important, not the actual work itself. It is the moment in time that is important. Language, while flawed, links people up to an idea, however vague and undefined to some, that connects people and unites them around a common value in a specific moment of time. When that value is no longer valued, outdated as the world changes and actions are made, a new moment is created, an imperfect representation, but one that holds as long as it can, until it, like the ideas before it, are broken and remolded to suit the time.

The second problem I see with Locke's argument is his denial of sensation as an idea passer. If we imagine ourselves going to a different country, where the languages don't match, and words supposed to signify symbols don't make any sense, we have to enter a new realm of communication, one shaped by sensation and body language. We connect and learn about people not through words, but with motion (forming shapes with our hands) and the complete reliance on our senses and memory to make sense of a situation. This may be a little vague, but the point I want to get across is that sometimes it is the passion itself that spreads an idea, not the actual words. We all have these basic sensations and if these are the one things that we all share, it makes sense that we can connect with others through these most honestly. Words form an identity, a collection of ideas that we believe in and form our notions of right and wrong.

Words on Lockedown

     We have been given the opportunity to witness the progression of rhetoric through the classical, medieval, and renaissance periods of the tradition.  With this week’s reading, we enter the enlightenment—though the rhetorician’s ability to be both descriptive and vague hasn’t wavered.  Perhaps not having read any of his work, most of us have at least heard of John Locke.  I myself have always had trouble separating him from the face of Locke from the television show Lost, considering his constant monologues and wise remarks.  Being that as it may, I found our rhetorician John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding to be compelling, but disconcerting at times.  He seems to describe some pretty basic ideas in such profound detail, I found myself questioning my understanding because it may not be so elaborate.

     I really enjoyed the section where Locke described the failure of words when used heedlessly by rhetors.  The text reads, “He that hath words of any language, without distinct ideas in his mind to which he applies them, does, so far as he uses them in discourse, only make noise without any sense or signification; and how learned soever he may seem, by the use of hard words or learned terms, is not much more advanced thereby in knowledge, than he would be in learning […]” (825).  A common theme among the rhetoricians we have studied has been their emphasis on the importance of education and a rounded one at that.  If people just spew words off without having the appropriate educational background, they are failing to fully make use of the utility words hold.  Improper use of these words, whether semantically or contextually, leads to their ultimate degradation.  In other words, know what you’re saying before you say it.  A simple suggestion so commonly ignored.

     On top of this highlight, I noticed Locke stressing this relationship of rhetor to the words they use.  Up until know, we’ve seen the balancing act between rhetor and audience, author and reader.  Locke doesn’t so much disregard these fundamental pairings, but breaks it down to further emphasize the idea rhetoric is built from the ground up.  A person must first be able to join language and knowledge before an outside dimension can be applied.

Merlin took my title

Lets get something straight… If we lived in a world ruled by Locke would I even be writing this blog? Do words even have significance? If not then why am I writing in the first place? It almost feels trough out the essay that the only reason Locke is writing at all is because he has no other way to remember his thoughts and has trouble conveying them to other people, because he is smarter than most. Locke descries the 2 reasons for communicating by words, civil and philosophical. The only reason to use words in a civil way is for the “upholding of common conversation and commerce, about the ordinary affairs and conveniences of civil life.” (817) The use of words philosophical, “may serve to convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general proportions certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon and be satisfied with in its search after true knowledge.” (817) When then I must argue what is the purpose of Locke writing this text? This text is definitely not civil in the sense of his argument not being common.  That would mean that the purpose of this text would be in a philosophical way. This would also mean the Locke would think his own text to be absolute truth. This is also very interesting because what about the search for absolute truth? I would argue that disputing and critiquing an idea leads to a deeper and higher understanding. The idea of an absolute truth is contradictory to the use of rhetoric. When using rhetoric you argue your point in a way to sway your audience to your side of the argument. An argument has two or more sides, undoubtedly with contradicting ideas. For Locke’s argument to be legitimate one side of the argument would have to be completely right (absolute truth). I would like to think that both sides of any argument, especially in an academic setting, have something to add to the argument, almost combining for a universal truth. I guess Locke didn’t see it that way and it seems depressing that he did. Locke goes on to say that words are useless because of the different meanings conveyed. He says something like, a smart man can convey a thought in 1 word while someone else may do it in 20. Does saying a thought in 20 word somehow make it less valid then if said in one? Maybe, but it doesn't mean the 20 word thought shouldn't be analyzed and responded to. 

Lost in Translation

So, obviously some of the texts that we read in these class are from hundreds if not thousands of years ago therefore many of them were written in a different language and have been translated differently numerous ways over time. We have had discussions about what has been weeded out through these countless numbers of translations and somehow this reminds me of Locke.

I am reminded by Locke not because his work probably had meanings and messages that fell of the cliffs of his pages over time, but I am reminded of him because I am asking myself, what else is lost in translation? What about what is lost between two people just talking to each other?

The reason I ask this question is because Locke talks a lot about how our ideas are interpreted differently by everybody and almost never seen exactly the way that you had conceived them to other people. This is such a strange and yet intriguing concept.

For Example: in class, I am making an argument about how the genre and concept of rhetoric could be metaphorically explained as a house. And I proceed to go through all of the intricate ways different aspects of rhetoric are like the different parts of a house. No matter how detailed i explain my thoughts, or how well i convey my ideas on this matter to the class, no ones perception of my metaphor will be the same.

"The chief end of language in communication being to be understood, words serve not well for that end, neither in civil nor philosophical discourse, when any word does not excite in the hearer the same idea which it stands for in the mind of the speaker. Now, since sounds have no natural connection with our ideas, but have all their signification from the arbitrary imposition of men, the doubtfulness and uncertainty of their signification, which is the imperfection we here are speaking of, has it's cause more in the ideas they stand for than in any incapacity there is in one sounds more than in another to signify any idea: for in that regard they are all equally perfect."

The literature goes on to talk about how we signify words to have very different meanings which make no ideas the same between two individuals. So that takes me full circle and explains to me why rhetoric has a different variations in definition among all of the people we have studied. Locke describes exactly why we all have different understanding of complex ideas. So perhaps nothing is lost in translation between two ideas, but maybe it is just that we define and signify words differently so our ideas are formed and understood in very different ways.

Who Gets To Decide What Words Mean?

"Who of all these has established the right signification of the word, gold?" --Locke (821).

Throughout John Locke's piece "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" I was struck again with how inseparable rhetoric is from authority. In examining the relationship between words and the world it is impossible not to ask the questions: who's world, and who's words? The nature of reality is called into question when he states, "the ideas they stand for have no connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing" (818). When we use words such as unicorn or God there is a perception of what the words mean based on cultural images that have been painted or spoken about, or we connect them to abstract feelings and thoughts. As the philosopher Anselm argues in his Ontological Argument because we can conceive of what a god or a unicorn might look like it comes into existence.

The relationship between words and the world complicates the ways in which we practice rhetoric, as it is important to both manipulate and persuade the interlocutor through the shared manipulation of reality.   Part of the rhetors job with language is utilize "the difference of ideas they stand for" (817). This is why John Locke requires three prerequisites of rhetoricians, "First , to make known one man's thoughts or ideas to another; Secondly, to do it with as much ease and quickness as possible; and, Thirdly, thereby to convey the knowledge of things" (825). What happened to the "good man"? I think a lot can be said about the time and culture Locke is writing in because he is emphasizing the importance of speed, mediation, and regurgitation of knowledge. If the audience got through all of these three steps it would be a lot easier to understand what words mean. Is Locke therefore establishing that rhetoricians must connect words with the world? That places a lot of control and authority with a rhetor who is formulating this reality.

Sounds and Signs

"For since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas, a man may use what words he pleases to signify his own ideas to himself: and there will be no imperfection in them, if he constantly use the same sign for the same idea: for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consist the right use and perfection of language" (Locke 817).

Compared to everything else we have read and studied this semester, Locke seemed to present the clearest and most-straightforward argument about rhetoric. The above quote, I feel, really captures the essence of what he tries to establish. You must define yourself, and by doing that you will define your parameters and clarify any pressing issues and questions that individuals may have with your arguments. As stated in the text, “words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others, in any language” (Locke 818).

We must utilize rhetoric in order to find the words that represent our arguments clearest. We must be certain to define ourselves, and support those definitions. For example, if I were to use the word “hyper reality,” it would hold no significance until I explained that it a literary technique utilized to create a believeable world in fantastical literature. Yet even that statement holds no merit unless someone from academia is there to support what I can claim this phrase to mean, and that statement does not get merit unless other members of academia deem it so…It is a continuous cycle just to be able to have one words definition.

This is the crucial part of what Locke is saying: define yourself to the best of your ability so that your train of thought cannot be questioned.

Response to John Locke

Last week I was assigned to read an explanation of Pavio’s Dual Coding theory in my psychology class.  This theory essentially claims that people are more prone to easily memorize or retain words which convey concrete physical meanings –which conjure mental images as well as mental definitions—more so than they are prone to easily memorize or retain words which refer solely to abstract concepts.  In my subsequent psychology lab, we tested the theory via an experiment, the results of which demonstrated that those of us who were forced to try and speedily memorize and record random strings of concrete words in succession (dog, horse, etc.) fared better than those of us who were given the same assignment...yet had to grapple with abstract words (love, death, etc.). 

Apparently, John Locke was onto this concept centuries ago.   He claims that the meanings of words become murky “Where the ideas they stand for have no certain connection in nature…” (818)  Later on, he elaborates that “the names of simple ideas are, of all others, the least liable to mistakes…” (823) I believe that this idea also consistently present throughout his essay.  

It struck me as very interesting that before this phenomenon had really been nailed down by science, people had already detected its presence and influence on communication.  Eventually, however, the field of psychology still clarified it.  Many fields, rhetoric among them, seem as though they ought to be largely dictated by common sense. (Really, what should be more common-sense based than a conversation, debate, or dialogue?)  Yet like a social science, rhetoric proves highly intricate and puzzling upon close investigation.  Hence why many so fields and specific discourse communities absolutely require that stricter definitions be placed upon more commonplace words frequently used in conversations within these groups.  Locke touches on this matter when describing how fixed definitions are a must in the field of philosophy, because when seeking or arguing a truth, there should be little or no room for interpretation of key concepts.   

Overall, John Locke points out an inevitable fact: language is organic and prone to constant change.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but Locke seems a little grim about the situation.  But couldn’t the malleability of language be used as a powerful rhetorical tool? 

   

Words as Power

I think this is one of the more interesting and different categorizations of writing and words that I’ve come across. Something that jumped out at me:

“It is true, as to civil and common conversation, the general names of substances, regulated in their ordinary signification by some obvious qualities, (as by the shape and figure in things of known seminal propagation, and in other substances, for the most part by colour, joined with some other sensible qualities,) do well enough to design the things men would by understood to speak of: and so they usually conceive well enough the substances meant by the word gold or apple, to distinguish the one from the other. But in philosophical inquires and debates, where general truths are to be established, and consequences drawn from positions laid down, then the precise signification of names of substances will be found not only not to be well established, but also very hard to be so.”

I find it interesting that Locke divides words into ‘civil’ and ‘philosophical’ use. His whole discussion of this issue really hits at what the nature of words is.

Last fall I took a class titled Book History. As the name suggests, it was literally a class about the history of writing as a technology, from stone slabs to the digital age. It seems very simple, but this was the first class that brought up much of the same issues that Locke is discussing. In the class, the main question brought up is what the nature of writing and books is. Is it the physical object or the ideas held within it? In the same way, Locke seems to be asking similar questions. What is the nature of words? Are they simple pictures processed by our brain? Or are words the inherent concept and meaning contained within the scribbled pictures? I’ll use his simple example of an apple. Is apple the word or the concept? We seem to have a chicken and the egg situation on our hands.

I haven’t quite made up my mind on Locke yet. I (well, kind of) understand the links he is making, but there is something unsettling about it too. If words have more meaning than mere words, what are they? I think Locke and Gorgias would get along well; the essence of both of their pieces we have read is that words have power. Which is an unsettling thought; now our other rhetoricians’ focus on morality makes more sense.

Ahh... Mr. Locke...

After reading this, and I had to, twice, because it seems at times that Locke is repeating himself, I got a sense that our friend, Mr. Locke, was trying to convey in as simple a thought as possible, that words are extremely powerful and must be used with caution, and wise intellect.

There's a very sociological significance to this piece, because of another book that I am reading for Capstone, entitled "Dude, You're a Fag." by CJ Pascoe.  While Pascoe's aim it look at the hypersexuality and hypermasculinity that seems to permeate through our high school years.  And, of course, the ostensible use of the word "fag"...

So while Locke would say that the simplest explanation for a word is going to be the best, and the more complex words will tend to get the most deluded messages, the importance of the word still remains. 

Coming back to Pascoe this ties in nicely, sociologically, when we think of how the word "fag" is used in the U.S.  In England, to say "fag" means a slang term for a cigarette.  Locke makes a great point when he says that no one really debates the meaning of the world "gold" because it has such a universal idea to it.  Pascoe would argue, at least from a perspective within the United States, that "fag" has very much the same ideal.  To be universally leveled at someone is to create a very striking image or caricature of someone.  And, I think that this is what Locke is intending with his essay, is to show how we use words purposefully.  Or it could still be the hydrocodone talking.

And how Locke ends his essay, with the importance of not abusing words, but using them with reverence, suggests to me that this entire exercise was a discourse about the proper art of persuasion.  Tying back into Pascoe's writing, we see that even though the word "fag" is used in different contexts in different situations, it is in the best nature that we take care of how and when to use those words so that we are purposefully and reverently using the words for their intended purpose and not abusing either the word and its definition, nor the person or ideal upon which we lay the identifying marker.

LOCKE

For only 10 pages, my mind feels exhausted. I've decided to approach Locke by picking out a few things I think he is conveying and thinking further on them.

"Hence, it comes to pass that men's names of very compound ideas, such as for the most part are moral words, have seldom in two different men the same precise signification; since one man's complex idea seldom agrees with another's, and often differs from his own - from that which he had yesterday, or will have tomorrow." (Locke, 818)

It calls to my mind the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" for some reason; that's what jumped into my head when I read that passage. Probably because we all find different things beautiful - and the same goes for ideas. I may be trying to make a point in one direction, and someone listening to it or reading it may get something else out of it entirely. That got me started thinking about authorial intent, especially in poetry. What you're trying to convey may not be read the same way. And then, while I was reading and thinking about the truths we find in fiction and poetry, etc, I find this:

"Fifthly, he that imagined to himself substances such as never have been, and filled his head with ideas which have not any correspondence with the real nature of things, to which he gives settled and defined names, may fill his discourse, and perhaps another man's head, with the fantastical imagination of his own brain, but will be far from advancing thereby one jot in real and true knowledge." (Locke, 826)

Whoa. I'm really not cool with that, Locke. And maybe it's because I took that passage a little too seriously, but all I could think about was how much I learned from the novels I read as a kid, and the ones I read now - and not just ones that are grounded in the reality of our own world. I think I acquired some real, true knowledge from those along the way. So I guess, that begs the question, what is Locke's simple definition of 'real and true knowledge'?

Passions as Truth

Let me start out by saying that I am a writing major with a philosophy minor/possible double major. So the philosophy of language is pretty much a marriage of my two loves. I can't help myself but to get excited when I read someone like John Locke.

That being said, I agree with Locke, and I also  disagree with him. I know language is imperfect, and Locke does a nice job of giving a variety of reasons to back that up. These vary from instances of imperfect translation between different languages, to instances when there is no perfect word to explain the true essence of a situation/substance. However, my agreement with Locke's philosophy ends here.

I don't think that the end of language is always communication. Sometimes it's beauty, self-discovery, etc. In some forms of writing, communicating quickly and efficiently is not the end. A good fiction short story will always have deeper meaning, but it could most certainly be told in about twenty words rather than three-thousand. But what's the fun in that?

My biggest issue with Locke can be summarized with this quote: "But yet if we would speak of things as they are, we must allow that all the art of rhetoric, besides order and clearness; all the artificial and figurative application of words eloquence hath invented, are for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgment" (827).

I think when the "passions are moved", humans are closer to true knowledge than when they are not. I think when language breaks your heart, or angers you, or makes you happy, it's because of a much larger reason than word choice and arrangement. It's about the content. I couldn't make you cry over any little thing, and I don't think the best rhetor alive could do it either. Logical rationality is great, but I'm more impressed with a piece of writing or a speech that can make me cry than one that can convince me through logical arguments. (Although the best ones do both.)

Don't tell me what I can't do...

"This man is hindered in his discourse, for want of words to communicate his complex ideas, which he is therefore forced to make known by an enumeration of the simple ones that compose them; and so is fain often to use twenty words, to express what another man signifies in one." (Locke, p.826-827, section 27)

Over-elaborate (the verb – long ā – not the adjective)... 

I wish I could end my blog post right there. But, I must make my point more clear.  So, let's back up a bit and establish a baseline for an argument. He says, "[t]he chief end of language in communication [is] to be understood" (p.817 section 4). For the sake of argument, let's suppose this is true, or let's at least pretend it is. And maybe it is in truth. The problem with this statement is that he takes the rest of his argument to say that language is wholly inadequate in proffering any real understanding between individuals. 

He further states that “the end of discourse and language” (as a definition of “being understood”?) is to convey thoughts and ideas (p. 818 section 6.I). It may not be necessary that in this particular discourse, Locke is attempting to convey his thoughts and ideas concerning the use of language in developing human understanding. I think he fails, by his own argument.

He lists three other ends of “language in our discourse” of which the second is “to do it with as much ease and quickness as possible” (p. 825 section 23). This leads to my opening quote and my biggest beef with Locke. He is saying that a speaker who lacks proper names of things must use their definitions to speak of them. I wonder if (and this is the beef) he considered extraneous sentence structure, over-nested clauses, and inconsistent structure to be an “abuse of words” in discourse. For example, the headings resemble an organized structure. But the heading for section 30 begins with the word “fifthly”, and section 34 begins with “seventhly” but there is no “sixthly” anywhere in between. Section 6 (p. 818) has a subsection labeled “I.” but there is no “II.” Okay, so this part is nitpicky, I agree, but it retains a measure of validity. It breaks his rule in that it is not easy to read. What makes it most difficult (and time consuming) is his lack of simplicity in sentence structure. I feel he could use fewer commas and more parentheses. The editors say his work influenced the promotion of perspicuity in rhetoric in the 1700s, but it is not clear if they are saying this was in argument or in agreement.

There is this, however: “This should teach us moderation in imposing our own sense of old authors” (p. 824 section 22 heading). This discourse is over 3000 years old. It might be that Locke’s choice of style was culturally common in his time.

(kudos to anyone who gets the title of this post)

Locke

I want to comment on something Locke gets into pretty early in the piece. Section five begins with: “words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others. (818)” Thinking about this idea, I remember working as a camp counselor for children either entering or currently in kindergarten.  I was trying to explain to a little boy why he couldn’t push other children, and needless to say it was not going very well. But now I don’t think it was as much his fault but mine; he truly just didn’t understand what he was doing wrong. There was no significance to the words that I was speaking, until he was put in time out.  Shortly after consequences were attached to “no” his behavior changed; he started to recognize that time out was not fun and when we said “no” there would be ramifications if he continued to bully others. Its interesting now reading this quote, because I wish I could go back so I could tell myself to just be patient and that its not his fault.

I was glad to see that Locke had included a section on mistakes. “The names of simple ideas are, of all others, the least liable to mistakes, (823)” and he goes on to explain why. I could be wrong but Locke seems to be the first author that is this open about mistaken interpretation.

Locke’s example, “Those which are not intelligible at all, such as names standing for any simple ideas which another has not organs of faculties to attain; as the names of colors to a blind man, (818)” really made me think about what it would be like to be blind. The idea that you would know what a color was, say blue, but the idea of the color blue meant nothing to you, is wild.  I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea of knowing a word for something but that word has no meaning. There would be no way, or it would be very difficult for a blind person, that has never seen color to describe something using a color. Unless they use color as an emotion and say something like “I’m feeling blue.”

A "Basic" Review of Locke

Here's how I read Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

Feel free to skip to my conclusion, I wrote too much.

Overview

First, we must understand that words/language is arbitrary, that the sound and alphabetic symbol given to a particular idea is not necessary to understand its meaning (which de Saussure and others will further explain 200 years later). That is, “sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas,” (Locke, 817); so we could say that

 

 =                       dog

 

and it wouldn’t change our understanding of what a tree is (Nietzsche goes on to argue that the signified of simple ideas is just as doubtful as complex ideas).

Next, when we communicate with words, there is a social contract to which we adhere to for certain meanings (think of English vs. Chinese) – we understand certain words in a civil context in order to understand each other. We don’t argue about the essence of cheese in a cheese shop. Then Locke goes one step farther to determine that there is a philosophical use of words, which aim to get at the very essence and basic notions of things in themselves. These kind of terms need to be developed, almost argued, in order to make real progress in a philosophical sense. 

Then, we have four basic characteristics of words in regards to their difficulty of being understood.

Words:

1. Stand for complex ideas
2. Can stand for ideas that are not found in nature, so there is no way to adjust their meaning from an empirical standard
3. Can exist according to a standard in nature, but this standard may not be accessible
4. Can represent one thing while its real essence is in fact different

Complex ideas are those that depend on simple ideas in order to make up their meaning. Since there are so many variables to a complex idea, one given person can understand each idea differently, therefore forming a completely different complex idea than another person, who has their own ideas about each simple idea (multiplied in infinitum, 819), even though simpler ideas are more likely to identify with something empirical, or from nature.

Infinity

One of the best moments in this essay is in section 9 of Chapter IX, and the idea of “moral words” (Locke, 819). He begins by developing the process by which we normally learn words. First, we are shown a visual representation (a picture of a dog) and then told the sound and the word-symbol for the idea: “dog.” When we develop ideas about moral words, this process is flipped around. We first learn the symbol, and then through discussion and melding of other simple ideas and complex ideas or by our own observation, we come to a conclusion about what the term means. These kinds of words are the most susceptible to our clear understanding. It also reveals the subjectivity of knowledge and understanding.

Yadda yadda yadda, Locke gives us some good examples about how we determine the meaning of words, and most importantly determines that “we must follow Nature, suit our complex ideas to real existences, and regulate the signification of their names by the things themselves, if we will have our names to be signs of them, and stand for them” (820). So he’s all for experimentation and empirical evidence. This of course, is only for things which we know imperfectly, such as coexisting simple ideas. It gets hairy in here, but I feel like he’s making a distinction between perceiving one reality and being limited from another reality. 

Going further, Locke wants us to define our terms in order to better understand each other, but the process of defining these terms is especially important as well. He says, “who can say one of them has more reason to be put in or left out than another?” in regards to the simple ideas that make up a complex one. This really made me thing about the intro, and how he doesn’t agree with syllogisms and enthymemes. Because if we are going to choose which ideas make up a more complex idea, doesn’t that seem like an enthymeme in itself? Don’t we still need to argue for a specific definition of a word, using logic and reason?

I also like that he gives the field of philosophy the task of delivering these exact definitions to moral words or words with imperfect essences, and I feel like it worked, for a while, in a given field. Today, we can say “deconstruct” in a civil sense, but in Literary Criticism (as well as Philosophy) that stands for a very specific set of ideas developed by Derrida. I guess what I’m getting at is that different academic fields may use the same word for completely different things – but it’s understood within that context, determined by a very specific set of simple ideas. 

Keep going, Locke! Near the end, he goes to defend his idea and states “I charge this as an imperfection rather upon our words than understandings” (824). The reason: words lead the way to knowledge. If our words are incorrect, then our knowledge will be incorrect; or, if our words are misused, then we won’t reach new knowledge. He also brings up issues of translation between cultures, which to me just says that knowledge and experience of reality is subjective. 

The Part Where He Actually Mentions Rhetoric:

Lastly, even though I’m ultra-simplifying, Locke attacks rhetoric and eloquence for screwing everybody up in the first place. Figurative language and the art of deception (which we can think to call rhetoric in some cases) has mislead our judgment, and thereby has mislead us on our path to knowledge. But since mankind loves to be deceived, we won’t ever stop using rhetoric and the path to knowledge and Truth will be much harder. 

Heavy Concluding Remarks:

I personally do not believe that there is an objective reality. I believe that we can only understand our reality in terms of language, because language is what shapes our understanding and gives us the words to make up these bigger, complex ideas. I do, however, believe in a shared reality based on a concept of a social contract or on cultural values, but each individual can either agree or disagree with this. We agree with it in order to get things done, to aim toward “progress.” If Locke is trying to argue for the ability for a person to find an objective reality through ultra-defining language, he has already lost because the small ideas which more complex ideas are based on are already, right from the start, created due to subjective perception. Just because one community agrees on a given term doesn’t make that universal or objective.