Contents:

John Locke and the Philosophy of Language - Real Philosophy

There are problems with Locke's claim, including some very down home difficulties. One problem is that when we work with examples of something which could be said in different languages or which could be put different ways, as soon as the examples are developed enough to have a shape and an identity then what is being said becomes less pen to variation; the ways that it can be said become much more precise, exact, and restricted.

This includes those examples in which the people speaking and conversing are fluent in more than one language. In those cases, the falsity of Locke's account especially emerges if the speakers raise questions about what exactly is being said, and the ability to say what is being said may be given in different languages but does not thereby involve saying different things.

PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: John Locke's Account of Words

Oftentimes, when one is exploring what exactly a particular thing is in this case it is language , we find ourselves with the inclination to search for why this particular thing exists and also how it arose in the first place. Men would in vain heap names of particular things, that would not serve them to communicate their thoughts. This account, however, seems to take a broad definition of the word thought since, by many accounts, there is somewhat of a chicken-egg relationship between thought and language where one cannot be seen to have arisen at least not with their current complexity, as it is likely that thought facilitated language and language facilitated certain kinds of thought without the other.

Access Check

Thus we may conceive how words, which were by nature so well adapted to that purpose, came to be made use of by men as the signs of their ideas; not by any natural connexion that there is between particular articulate sounds and certain ideas, for then there would be but one language amongst all men; but by a voluntary imposition, whereby such a word is made arbitrarily the mark of such an idea. After we had awhile puzzled ourselves, without coming any nearer a resolution of those doubts which perplexed us, it came into my thoughts that we took a wrong course; and that before we set ourselves upon inquiries of that nature, it was necessary to examine our own abilities, and see what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with. On Locke's picture, this is impossible. En este ensayo me propongo: Because an illegitimate civil government does this, it puts itself in a state of nature and a state of war with its subjects. This is a quite difficult question to answer.

Cromie examines exactly this issue in regards to a study done with 5-month old children. Through the course of the study what was found is that children develop ways of thinking that are independent of language prior to learning their native tongue. With such a discovery, however, comes the question as to what, either in nature or otherwise, would cause these distinctions to be made differently.

If it was the case that there was a natural connection between particular words and the things they represent then, according to Locke, there would be only one language. If one were to take the example of gold solely at face value, it might suggest that there must be something which is that named after that characteristic before we begin to use it as merely a descriptive characteristic.

These words, though they express roughly the same idea, will vary from individual to individual depending on their personal experience with what is being signified by our use of the word, and in this sense, words are used in the same way be it by an educated or uneducated individual. Each person who has the chance to use this word to describe their idea will do so, but in using this word they are not conveying the full extent of the meaning to the person with whom they are communicating.

This, however, seems to be somewhat of a simplistic account, unless one merely assumes that Locke is pointing out how a word attains its meaning. It seems as though with each new characteristic applied to a word, so long as that meaning is germane to the actual properties present as with gold, this would be the color, weight, malleability, fusibility, et cetera , that will inevitably be added to the list of characteristics one might attribute to the word.

In a very simplistic way, and was perhaps implied, this account also applies to denotative and connotative aspects inherent in our acquisition of language that will concern the value judgments we often place on words. Locke explicitly claims that the thoughts we have are hidden and invisible from others, and if it is the case, then the possibility remains that these thoughts, even concerning specific things, will be different from one person to the next.

However, Locke does leave out the fact that our particular experience with a thing, good or bad, can influence our own personal thoughts on it. Though both individuals have the same definition of a dog, they have placed different value judgments on them because of their experiences.

John Locke

While these two interpretations of the claim may seem different, they are much intertwined. If we consider the map to be the objective thing itself that which we are defining , and if it is the case that we are merely seeking to represent the thing then we realize that word is not the thing itself.

Further, when we speak we are representing a representation. Before we can represent it through language we must first have an idea or representation of it in our mind, which likely means that we have to experience it, to a certain degree even if just through another person telling us about it before we can really put it into words. Here there seems to be some groundwork being laid wherein one can refute the claim that language as a system of signs, in a certain sense, will imply an infinite regression.

In any case, each person will have a different representation of the thing itself in their mind because they experience it differently.

John Locke and the Philosophy of Language - Real Philosophy

Check out this article to learn more or contact your system administrator. Send the link below via email or IM. Present to your audience.

Trees for Saltland: A Guide to Selecting Native Species for Australia?
The Grimoire.
Busybody (a one act play).
Locke's Philosophy of Language by Nathalie Morasch on Prezi.
His Unknown Heir (Mills & Boon Modern)?
1. Historical Background and Locke’s Life!
2004.08.07.

Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article. Please log in to add your comment.

See more popular or the latest prezis. Constrain to simple back and forward steps. Copy code to clipboard. Add a personal note: Houston, we have a problem! Stand out and be remembered with Prezi, the secret weapon of great presenters.

Downloading prezi...

Send the link below via email or IM Copy. Present to your audience Start remote presentation. Do you really want to delete this prezi? Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again. Comments 0 Please log in to add your comment. Transcript of Locke's Philosophy of Language Locke's Philosophy of Language Ideational theory of meaning "Besides articulating Sounds therefore, it was farther necessary, that he should be able to use these Sounds, as Signs of internal Conceptions ; and to make them stand as marks for the Ideas withing his own Mind, whereby they might be made known to others, and the Thoughts of Men's Minds be conveyed from one to another" III.

Privacy of meaning "Words in their primary or immediate Signification, stand for nothing , but the Ideas in the Mind of him that uses them" III. Some obvious, but important observations We can't read other people's thoughts. Thoughts aren' public, like my body is. You can all use sense perception to see my body There is no according perception to grant you access to my thoughts. We need an instrument to convey to others our thoughts: Just think about how common the following question is: Phenomenon to be explained: Language is a system of signs which we use to communicate with each other.

Who can edit:

Locke framed the discourse of philosophy of language. If the meaning of words is private, then communication isn't possible. This conception of language can be found in Hobbes and can be traced back to Aristotle. According to some interpreters Kretzmann 'signify' doesn't mean 'mean'. What Locke means is that a word directly or immediately means an Idea in the mind of the user, as well as, indirectly or mediately means the thing which that idea represents.

Others argue that Krezmann's interpretation distorts Locke. Let's begin with 2: When I say that "dogs bark" I don't mean to say that my ideas of dogs bark, but that those in the flesh do. We need words to be about things outside of our minds, not exclusively about things inside our minds. Genuine communication involves one person understanding another, and this in turn requires that she should know what the other person means. On Locke's picture, this is impossible.

2. The Limits of Human Understanding

Ott, Walter, Locke's Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, On Ott's interpretation, Locke's thesis that words are signs of ideas. Locke on Private bahana-line.comeve Brykman - - In Phillip D. Cummins & Guenter Zoeller (eds.), Minds, Ideas, and Objects: Essays in the Theory of.

According to Locke, words themselves are not intrinsically meaningful. Words are just sounds that could mean anything or nothing. In order for you to know what my word 'dog' denotes, you would have to have access to what idea in my mind it relates to. Of course, there is no way for you to preceive my ideas.