Let me start out by saying that I am a writing major with a philosophy minor/possible double major. So the philosophy of language is pretty much a marriage of my two loves. I can't help myself but to get excited when I read someone like John Locke.
That being said, I agree with Locke, and I also disagree with him. I know language is imperfect, and Locke does a nice job of giving a variety of reasons to back that up. These vary from instances of imperfect translation between different languages, to instances when there is no perfect word to explain the true essence of a situation/substance. However, my agreement with Locke's philosophy ends here.
I don't think that the end of language is always communication. Sometimes it's beauty, self-discovery, etc. In some forms of writing, communicating quickly and efficiently is not the end. A good fiction short story will always have deeper meaning, but it could most certainly be told in about twenty words rather than three-thousand. But what's the fun in that?
My biggest issue with Locke can be summarized with this quote: "But yet if we would speak of things as they are, we must allow that all the art of rhetoric, besides order and clearness; all the artificial and figurative application of words eloquence hath invented, are for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgment" (827).
I think when the "passions are moved", humans are closer to true knowledge than when they are not. I think when language breaks your heart, or angers you, or makes you happy, it's because of a much larger reason than word choice and arrangement. It's about the content. I couldn't make you cry over any little thing, and I don't think the best rhetor alive could do it either. Logical rationality is great, but I'm more impressed with a piece of writing or a speech that can make me cry than one that can convince me through logical arguments. (Although the best ones do both.)
Agreed! I think that discourse can and should communicate emotion (not exclusively, but as an instance of it). You can't convey an emotion by simply using the proper words to describe it. To say something is joyful, does not produce joy, but a really good, poetic metaphor might.
ReplyDeleteGod forbid I ever find myself with flames shooting out of my neck, but if my throat is sore, I might say it is on fire. This conveys much more closely what I am attempting to say than would, "My throat hurts." Even if you and I have different interpretations of what a throat on fire would feel like, we'll have a great degree more separation of meaning to say it simply hurts.
He also separates common communication from philosophical communication, but poetry and prose fall into neither and both of these categories at the same time. He offers one exemption from "discourses where we seek rather pleasure and delight than information and improvement" but by doing so, excludes such discourses from offering information and improvement. Apparently, he never watched a good TED talk!
I think you’re treading on a very interesting element of language here that I am absolutely fascinated with: language to move an individual. As all of our texts have talked about rhetoric being a persuasive discourse you have truly demonstrated to me—as you argue against Locke—that language can persuade us towards emotions that we, as writers, wish for the reader to feel.
ReplyDeleteThere is one crucial area that I feel would help your argument: on page 817, right in the beginning, Locke states; “For since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas, a man may use what words he pleases to signify his own ideas to himself: and there will be no imperfection in them, if he constantly use the same sign for the same idea: for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consists the right use and perfection of language.” Here he establishes a simple idea: words hold power and meaning—this persuasive, emotional power that you speak of—based on what those around us have commonly accepted as signs that express the very things we wish to have expressed.
So, the question I pose is a simple one: how can one move the passions? If all words are simply signs that are widely accepted, then what makes certain words (or collections of words to form a specific image) more powerful and more moving? Why is twenty-thousand words better than twenty words?
I suppose John Locke's idea that figurative language clouds meaning does make sense, in a way... Figurative language adds still more layers of words, concepts, and emotions (which could suggest any number of conflicting facts) onto a situation which was already confusing enough that it required a corresponding metaphor in order to be clarified.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one cannot deny that metaphors are frequently implemented as demystifying devices. When speakers resort to employing metaphors (and similes and all their ilk...I'm using "metaphor" as an umbrella term here, probably incorrectly)...they often choose to use them because the only apparent way to bridge the gap of misunderstanding between two or more people is describing a simple, universally shared idea image (sometimes with emotional roots) which makes the argued meaning of the situation to which it is likened far easier to understand.
For this reason, it's almost a little surprising to me that Locke does not care for figurative language. After all, these "gaps of misunderstanding" seems to be what he's trying to combat. Then again, poetry may come closer to truth via figurative language and "moving the passions;" but poems remain riddles for the same reason.
Overall, I think figurative language is more prone to aid communication than anything, and I agree with your statement that "when the 'passions are moved', humans are closer to true knowledge than when they are not."