I believe that Locke's argument, that words only signify the signs of the ideas of those who use them, is a more accurate description of the use of language. Both Locke and Mill discuss that names and words are utilize to identify observable attributes of concepts or objects within our world, however, Locke's explanation better establishes that the differences in our experiences and understanding of these concepts and objects within our world can affect how we utilize these words and how we communicate with each other. Often times in discussion context is necessary in understanding how to interpret a statement or the words/names presented within the given sentence; a sentence such as "I went to the dentist yesterday" could be interpreted as a traumatic experience by an individual who has been plagued with cavities their entire life, while it could be interpreted as a pleasant experience by an individual who has been praised with great oral hygiene their entire life. Such significations of the word "dentist" are establish primarily by the ideas within the mind of the individual.
However, it can be acknowledged that some objects or concepts have specific definitions and regardless of an individual's understanding of this word/concept, and how it's presented in context, it will always have a particular signification which is not determined by the individual. "The Sun" and "the first Emperor or Rome" possess significations that pertains to physical facts, and may not be seen as up to interpretation by the individual.
Mill states that "A word may have several meanings, but all of them fixed and recognized ones". I am curious how this statement is affected by individual memories; how is the signfication of varying memories, by individuals, to a word/name considered within Mill's philosophy?
No comments:
Post a Comment