I believe that Locke's argument provides a more complete view of the purpose of words. According to Locke, words represent the speaker's ideas of things. Through my interpretation of Locke's argument, in this way, words describe things well as they represent not only the thing itself along with its attributes, but words also encompass the ideas of others which could serve as the basis of the individual's own ideas about something and people "suppose their words to be marks of the ideas in the minds also of other men," which is like how language creates commonality within a culture. With these main points, I think that Locke has the more complete viewpoint on words and their meaning and purpose in language.
Mill's argument was narrow, asserting that words are only broken down into names and attributes of things. Although Mill's argument is a better explanation of how words are used in a language to communicate, it does not capture the meaning behind words. Furthermore, words representing ideas of a thing must also include the fact that that thing exists along with the physical facts surrounding it.
Does Mills mean to say that words are only used to refer to things and their attributes as physical facts and not how things might relate to
one another in the real world? Does Mill's argument fill in the gaps of Locke's argument or vice versa?
No comments:
Post a Comment