I would have to agree more with Locke about the meaning of our terms. He discusses the ultimate goal of our words as a means of communication, which I think is the reason that our words exist. Without society or other human beings, we would have no reason to have words, because we would not be using them to convey ideas to others.
Locke: In 3.4, Locke states that "a distinct name for every particular thing would not be of any great use for the improvement of knowledge...knowledge, though founded in particular things, enlarges itself by General views." How would Locke react to knowing that Eskimo's have 50 different words for "snow"?
Mill: I'm curious to know how one would view "nothing" in Mill's perspective. How would he describe something that is nothing; would he attribute it with "nothingness"?
I read just a little bit past the assignment in Mill, and I think I can answer your question here. [pg 042] "When the positive name is connotative, the corresponding negative name is connotative likewise; but in a peculiar way, connoting not the presence but the absence of an attribute." and also "The word inconvenient, for example, does not express the mere absence of convenience; it expresses a positive attribute—that of being the cause of discomfort or annoyance."
ReplyDeleteFrom this, I would say that Mill would likely treat 'nothing' as the absence of a thing, but I think it also includes a time specific element. For example, 'there is nothing here' includes the unspoken 'right now', because there might have been something here in the past, as well as in the future. So 'nothing' is context dependent but specifies the absence of 'thing', by Mill's argument.
--Alex Rowell