I agree primarily with Mill's perspective that humans primarily say things based on iconic representations of the world. Locke has a valid point of more arbitrary thought, so by combining the two ideas together we can get a more clear representation on human thought and communication based on icon, index, and symbols whether they are based in the physical world or not. Words that describe tangible objects are pretty undeniable, but other concepts are not so easily described by humans.
Locke's idea is extremely valid in the point that when one says something that communication is based on the interpretation and perception of the speaker. This can be demonstrated in small children who assimilate that all fuzzy animals are called "cat" before they accommodate for the fact that cats, dogs, bears, and other animals are, in fact, different (but in their mind before accommodating, cat did in fact represent more.)
That being said, Mill's perspective counters this example by the fact that even if the child mislabels an animal, the iconic fact that the animal is not a cat can not be changed in the physical world. Words do not just mean what is in the speaker's mind, but also what is proven to be true (i.e.: cats and other animals are, on a scientific basis, different).
No comments:
Post a Comment