An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Locke analyzes language and the use of words to represent ideas and concepts. “Words are used for recording and communicating our thoughts” he says. He distinguishes between “civil” (i.e., everyday use) and “philosophical” (i.e. technical use) of words, and claims the former is imprecise, while the latter is (or at least should be) precise. Since the main purpose of language is communication, miscommunication can happen when words mean something to the speaker and something else to the hearer. He then goes on to identify several instances where this sort of miscommunication can happen. It is interesting that he also notices the implication of the ambiguity of language with respect to understanding the works of writers who belong to a different age and a different country, for the passage of time and difference of culture creates additional barriers in the way of the communication function of language. In particular, he discusses the interpretation of the old and the new testaments: although the texts themselves are “infallible”, the reader’s understanding and interpretation of those texts are, have to be, fallible. This dose of falliblism in understanding scripture (and more generally in understanding all texts) is a healthy welcome, especially in an age where people still seem to claim they have absolute access to the true meanings of such texts. He then goes on to criticize rhetoric: if we are to enjoy language and seek pleasure from its use, then may be use of rhetorical language is accepted, but where the intention is to speak of things “as they are”, then “eloquence and artificial and figurative application of words” are “for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas.” In other words, rhetorical language should only be used for pleasure.I think this important essay signifies the beginnings of an awareness of the critical role of language, an awareness which is one of the hallmarks of modern thought. Locke is one of the first thinkers who is coming to the realization that the ambiguities and shortcomings in language are not just accidental, but apparently fundamental. Yet, what distinguishes him from modern thought is that he thinks, in spite of these ambiguities, it is possible to master language and prevent “miscommunication” by careful use of language, for instance, by keeping the use of rhetorical language limited only to where the intention is to take pleasure in language and not to communicate facts. In short, he feels that language, at least in some level, can serve as a solid ground for human knowledge. On the other hand, modern thought is much more pessimistic (or realistic?). All forms of language are rhetorical, and there are no clear distinctions between understandings and misunderstandings. Moving from the latter to the former is a process without guarantee and undeterminable in advance, a process which resists clear rules, methods, or algorithms.