Each argument speaks to different aspects of language. Locke's understanding of language shows a great deal of insight to the variability and arbitrariness of words. While Mill's perspective offers how language identifies and interprets aspects of the world. Mill's argument seems to inform Locke's, in that, the ideas which we have and share through language are yet rooted in sensation, and thus organized, in the respective "attributes" they share. For me, the combination of the perspectives allow for a greater appreciation of the nature of language.
I wonder how Mills would explain the ability to explain and understand ideas or things that do not exist in any true form. (e.g. "Earth's second sun")
No comments:
Post a Comment