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.