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.
I also do agree that Locke's ideas are shocking. I do think that the reason for different understandings is because peoples different translations of the words. But I want to ask the question, why do people understand words differently? Locke would argue that it would be education level. But what about culture, location, and upbringing? It seems to me that Locke and you agree that it is individualized when thinking about the meaning of a word. I challenge you to think about it in more of a communal understanding. After this class of Rhetoric , for example, our ideas will have been shared and morphed between all of us. We should listen and take ideas from everyones papers, blogs, and conversations in class to form similar ideas on rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting with the rise of digital rhetoric to think what is getting lost and what can be recalled instantaneously. A lot of people tend to put anything onto Facebook because it seems fleeting, when in reality it can be relocated at anytime. I loved your idea at the ending of nothing being lost between two ideas, because all I can think about is how much all of the ancient rhetoricians have influenced each other. It would almost be impossible to link two ideas together without considering all the other ideas that formulated those two to begin with. Overall I think it is small repetitive breakthroughs that become normative to us that shape culture and thus help redevelop our understanding, leading to a new translation.
ReplyDelete