Locke, criticizes words because they can result in a fragmented understanding. He raises the point that our biggest downfall is the application of words to collections of ideas. He represents this point in two ways. One example he utilizes is the element gold. He proposes the several ways in which we can come to define that element such as solubility, color, value etc. However, to each individual the word gold will elicit a different blend of all those qualities which it comprises. Further along, he exemplifies how words not grounded in reality, such as words dealing with morality, which have no standard basis from which to measure are impossibly difficult to reconcile.
Plato, similarly, touches on this point when he chooses to define love so as to be specific to his argument. However, Plato chooses to focus more on the rhetoric aspect of finding true understanding. Plato is concerned with the overall dynamic of writing as a means at reaching the essence of ideas. Locke focuses on suggesting that many of the differences that arise in meaning are due to the ambiguous and varying definitions that individuals assign to complex ideas. How do you suppose we can reconcile these two views on reaching understanding, if at all? Do you see more merit in one approach more than the other?
I think that Plato and Locke are discussing basically the same problem, but from different angles. Plato introduces a failing of words, and Locke explains why this failing exists. Plato brings up the fact that you can use words and rhetoric to argue two completely opposite points, thus suggesting that rhetoric can't be wholly relied upon. Locke's theories explain why words and rhetoric can be used in such conflicting contexts. Namely, the fact that words mean different things to different people. Thus, when something is mentioned, it could illicit completely different responses or understanding depending on the hearer. I don't really think one approach has more merit than another, because they're really talking about the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI see one central difference in what Edgar mentions about Plato & Locke in terms of their view on words and their meaning. Locke sees the difference between what we see, what we perceive, and what we say as the main problem. As Edgar describes, gold would be a perfect example in showing how we may use the same word to describe a concept that is not clearly defined to any of us. This differs from Plato's opinion. According to him, we have all seen the Platonic Forms and therefore have at least some idea of what they are. Here is another difference between the two: With Plato, the problem with words occurs when our understanding of them does not align itself with the true forms. With Locke, the uncertainty would lie in the way definitions differ from one person to another.
ReplyDeleteEdgar mentioned that Plato sees writing and rhetoric - words, that it - as the best method to reach understanding. Plato believes that it is possible to comprehend the essence of something through the science of argument. Locke, by contrast, believes in the power of the senses and the necessity of reflecting on how we respond to the information they bring us. He downplays the power of words in helping us get closer to the essence of an idea. About understanding the concept of perception itself, he writes,"What perception is, everyone will know better by reflecting on what he does himself, when he sees, hears, feels, etc. or thinks, than by any discourse of mine... And if he does not reflect, all the Words in the World, cannot make him have any notion of it." Locke's fundamental belief in the need for experience to understand the world is what marks him as an Empiricist.
ReplyDeleteI find a varying degree of similarity between Locke’s and Plato’s views through the way Locke explains the idea of reflection, and the way Plato discusses the idea of recollection. Locke states “ the Mind furnishes the Understanding with Ideas of its own operations,” emphasizing the fact that the way we understand ideas is through the workings of the mind. In comparison to Plato which believes that wings (through which reality/true forms is attainable) will grow faster in a philosopher who perceives understanding through memory. In contrast, however, Plato as Rasmus already stated, believes that words are unsuccessful when we don't understand the true essence of something, while Locke believes in individual perception as the key to understanding the reality of things. I find that Locke’s discernment of the way we perceive things through reflection is exceptional because everyone has a distinct view of things, even if its something logical, we all dissent in our beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rasmus. Should we have a natural understanding of truth, as Plato argues, then we would all have the same ideas, and discussing them would simply be a matter of assigning the same word to a concept we all share. According to Locke, the ideas themselves vary by person, just as our perceptions vary. Plato's concept of the ideal method of attaining knowledge is similar to a fox hunt, with properly defined words like properly trained dogs to help chase down the truth, which was was seen and released in the beginning. For Locke, the process is passive. We never saw the fox in the beginning and the dogs are untrained, so we when we hear a noise, one of us might think it is a fox, another a deer, and yet another a bird. We can cooperate to hunt the fox, according to Plato, using the dogs, or dialogue. In Locke's view, however, words can not help us, nor can we help each other through them, as we have different ideas about what we are after.
ReplyDeleteOne of Plato's central arguments in discussing the failure of words is nearly equivalent to Locke's that Edgar gives. Plato, instead of gold, gives a tale about a man trying to convince a man that a donkey is a horse. While he a donkey is rather different than a horse, Socrates leads Phaedrus to the conclusion that this deception of confusion is easier "in those [things] that differ little" (262a). So Plato is discussing how someone can confuse the image of two objects as the one word. Locke similarly discusses two people thinking of one word as two different things, as in his gold example. Their bases for their caution against words are very similar.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Locke and Plato agree on at least one thing: words are not useful. As Edgar pointed out, Locke does not believe in words as a useful way to communicate the truth. Plato also believes that in order to use words well, you must know the truth. Although their arguments are slightly different in that Locke thinks words have multiple meanings or sometimes no meaning at all and Plato thinks they can be used to persuade people of bad things, both agree words are not a useful tool for communication or understanding.
ReplyDeleteLike Plato, Locke understands that words do not do justice to the ultimate truth. Nothing really can do this, not even images or perception. Each sort of brushes on the surface of the truth. However, both are men of words and use them as the best means to approach, understand, and reflect on reality. Plato has issue with rhetoric and a person's ability to manipulate the truth and by extension others. Locke is suspicious of the multiple meanings and vagueness of words. Plato is more focused on the misuse of words by the speaker, while Locke is concerned with the misunderstanding by the audience. I think both are valid concerns and drive at the ultimate danger of words.
ReplyDeleteAs Edgar said, Locke criticizes words and essentially says they are often misunderstood. I find this to be comical considering he his telling us his thoughts using WORDS. If he truly believed this he would not have used the written word to try and convince us that the written word is misunderstood. I feel as if this does not make sense.
ReplyDeleteLocke's view, in some ways, appears to be a drastic extension of Plato's. Whereas Plato believes that humans have an imperfect understanding of truth but can approach approximations of it, Locke's view of the world seems to suggest more that absolute truth is impossible for humanity to collectively arrive at, since everyone's perception of reality can be so radically different. Locke's and Plato's views may be to a different scale, but they are both based off of the fallibility of human language and perception in determining the truth of the world around them.
ReplyDeleteLocke’s notion that ideas come from experiences resonates more easily with me than does Plato’s notion of the Form. Almost everyone experiences Locke’s scientific, empirical arguments in their own life on a daily basis, for example when trying to recall a memory. Locke discusses truth that the average person thinks about on a daily basis, whereas Plato’s truths are probably only contemplated daily by philosophers and other high thinkers. Each seems to be appealing to a different audience through his writing; Locke to the everyman and Plato to the intellectual elite. Plato’s conclusions seem less relevant to daily life than do Locke’s.
ReplyDeleteLocke's presentation of word and image is not that different from Plato's; however, Locke uses different methods to convey his ideas and theories. Plato uses deep philosphy that may confuse the readers to understand word and image, Kafka uses a simple story to show the importance of image on words, and Locke approach a different style by presenting very examples in the human's real life. For Locke, people have memories from which they support the images the see again over and over, so it is difficult to change the images they have already in their minds because those images are not instant images but built up images. So as someone of you mentioned it is hard to convince someone that a donkey is a horse or vise versa.
ReplyDeleteA commonality, in Kafka, the officer tries to picture a perfect image of the machine in the explorer's mind, but reality does not help that because the explorer's idea changes as he see the machine not working.
I also liked how Locke shows that baby borns have no images in their minds, and as they grow and see around they start building those images in their minds. Simply, the way we see things around as and the images we have in our minds are built images since we were children.