Locke V. Mill [Alice Crowe]

Disputes about the nature of language, here exemplified in the opposing views of Locke and Mill, often question a Cartesian difference between a word signifying an idea of the mind or a physical object touchable with the body. It is, however, the former that is correct, insofar as only these two options are possible. We must consider how our interpretations of things, such as the sun, changes our understanding of them as physical objects. Consider, for a moment, the heliocentric vs. geocentric contention -- if we see the sun as orbiting the Earth, it's importance is diminished, and vice versa for a geocentric view, where it becomes more significant -- but the word "sun" remains the same in both models, and it still rises, even if our language affects how we react to such a mundane action. For Locke, I would content that a single mind, untouched by society and socialization, is the rarity, rather than the norm. Thus, ideas and words refer to how the socialized, rather than independent mind, uses them. To Mill, I would content that his understanding of day as a physical phenomenon is partially based in the language to which he subscribes. Had he, say, no word for the day, unable to communicate such a concept to a reader, he would be unable to make a clear distinction between night and day, and would be forced to coach it in (for example) light, midlight, and darkness, a fundamentally different concept than the understood term of day.