"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)
I thought I understood your title, but the last sentence of your post made me question myself. I thought your title was directed a Locke, and meant that you don't appreciate him telling you not to write with your own eloquent style. I would even go so far as to say he was telling us not to write poetry.
ReplyDeleteI also had issues with his arguments, particularly the ones you shared about in your post. I'm wondering if Locke considered poetry to be some sort of evil abuse of words. A lot of times, poetry is not meant to be a direct communication from reader to writer. I would argue that it serves most as communication between the writer and himself. I'm not quite sure how to explain myself, but I know I've recently been influenced by Richard Hugo's "Triggering Town."
I would also argue that in pretty much all cases, poetry is not meant to communicate with in quickness and ease. Hardly ever have I read a poem that I didn't have read twice, and usually, I have to read it more than twice. Poetry's end is not quick and efficient communication. I think it's beauty for the reader, and self-discovery for the writer.
In defense of Locke though, I will admit that in philosophy, people really need to be more consistent in their meaning of words. When the writer means morality in one way, and the reader takes it a different way, of course confusion will be the result.
The title is not so deep as that, but I like your interpretation. :)
DeleteBravo. I have a good feeling about the interesting-ness of our upcoming discussion on Locke tomorrow. As far as his style goes, I thought that having gotten away from the classical texts would've helped even the language out some, but alas, no. I guess that's the language for you - looking at how much style has changed over the centuries is kind of mind-boggling quite honestly. So how do we look at Locke's use of style in a modern context?
ReplyDelete