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.
It is interesting to think of a world without words. What would it look like? We use them daily to program where we are going to be, who we are going to be with, yet with the spread of communication and thus words we are able to be with people on the other side of the world. So rather than looking at how words hold together communication I think it is important to look at things that make words necessary, such as space and time. Even looking at how much space and time those 20 words take up over 1, we are completely structured by these two factors, and yet we rarely stop to appreciate the weight of that.
ReplyDelete