While reviewing Locke's article, I couldn't help but go back to Locke's thoughts on simple ideas and simple modes. I read it along the lines of the question that we discussed in class on whether or not the signification of one idea means the destruction or death of another. In terms of simple ideas, Locke writes, "it is easy to observe what has been remarked, viz. that the names of simple ideas are, of all others, the least liable to mistakes (p.823)." He says that theses simple ideas are easier to understand and remember because the idea has one perception and that "they are never referred to any other essence, but barely that perception they immediately signify (p.823)." One would think that on the whole, yes, the simplest way to tell something to someone else is probably the best and easiest way to do it. On the other hand, this statement by Locke makes me think that he only sees language in the most practical and basic matter.
Yes, simple words in common person to person, face to face communication are the easiest to perceive and understand as far as what the speaker is trying to communicate to the listener, but what about beyond that? Locke gives the example of words like "white" and "sweet" being words that's meaning is obvious to everyone. I am not so sure that this is true in all literary scenarios, such as poetic speech. For centuries, people have been trying to decipher why the Green Knight in the poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is green. Yes, it is just a color, but it has to stand for something, or at at least people believe that it has to stand for something. The world that we live in is filled with small, simple words that stand for bigger meanings. The word "white" can mean so many different things from a color, to purity, to feeling scared. I agree that in certain situations, "simple ideas" are the easiest to understand from the words that we use, but in many literary situations, a simple word can have the most controversy over what it does or does not stand for.
I like that you commented on Locke's idea of a "simple" word, because I had trouble figuring out what Locke thought of as a "simple" word. Every word in every language has a different meaning every time it is typed, every time it is voiced, and every time it is learned. Multiple meanings are most common in these "simple" words that Locke mentions. It is new and unfamiliar ideas that have only one meaning, and that is the meaning that its creator intended. That singular meaning only lasts for an instant, however, the second that word stops being new. Those unfamiliar ideas are almost never simple, though, and so they too become as complex as the age-old word "green," as you pointed out.
ReplyDeleteJosh and Jaylyn, for the very reasons you question it, I do not think Locke would necessarily posit "green" or "white" as simple because it he thinks the word has no other possible interpretations. Rather, I think he would posit those ideas as simple if and when they are meant to be used as sensations. I seem to remember that he called ideas simple and complex, but not words: "simple ideas are, of all others, the least liable to mistakes" (823). In the example you give, the use of "green" before "Knight" may actually qualify as a complex idea or a complex mode, and thus it requires more than simple signification.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing to keep in mind is that much of what he says about the imperfection of words seems to be his own observation about how words alone are not enough to be "the chief end" of communication, which is to be understood accurately (Locke 817). So it seems as if you and he share the same quandary. I'm not sure Locke necessarily proposes that we see certain words as simple or not; rather, I get the sense that he is trying to differentiate between the many reasons why we can't take words at face value when they contain coexisting values that we cannot easily access.
Good example!