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 When that value is no longer valued, outdated as the world changes and actions are made, a new moment is created, an imperfect representation, but one that holds as long as it can, until it, like the ideas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.