Locke and Mill [Henry Tran]

I believe that John Locke is closer to the truth of the meaning and reference to our terms. His perspective states that words are arbitrarily connected by the person who uses it, thus each person has their own meaning to the words they use. This makes sense to me, as we use words we have our own meanings behind it, people who hear our words are then tasked with understanding a common idea in order to communicate efficiently. Similarly Locke states in 2.4, "SUPPOSE THEIR WORDS TO BE MARKS OF THE IDEAS IN THE MINDS ALSO OF OTHER MEN, WITH WHOM THEY COMMUNICATE," ideas have to align to be understood. The same words may be said, but the idea behind the string of words may be understood differently.

A problem that I see with Mill's perspective is when he says that words refer to the physical fact, then what if words are overlapping? Similar words might be said but can also be referred to as two different physical objects.

What else can be problematic about Locke's perspective?

--Henry Tran