Locke and "Key"

Okay, so I remember when Professor Graban mentioned in the first few classes that blogging is when we would start to feel smart, and with Locke I am starting to feel that. Why is that??

Well, not meaning to brag (or maybe I am; I'm just excited about this), Locke's arguments about language is something I've basically been writing about since Barthes!!! My other two posts I'm just going on and on about how there is an argument by the critics that language is seen as "imperfect" (well this is Locke's term now, he helped me see it that way) because to communicate is to used agreed upon, or universal, vocabulary though it may not exactly fit said person's emotions. HA! This is so exciting because I feel like I have been on the right track with my musings. And... I'll stop "bragging" now and talk about the essay...

I believe this is Locke to a tee -- Two types of speech: words we create for ourself, and words we use to communicate ideas to another person. In creating words for our own understanding, language is perfect because the ideas represented in the words are always true and stand for the same thing. In communicating words to another person, either civically or philosophically, language is imperfect because its meaning may not have the same meaning as the mind of the speaker... (817)

I really see Aristotle, Barthes, Foucault and Locke mixing together. Aristotle and his multidimensional 'ends' in where he said the end of Politics to be "happiness" and I interpret that, in regards to human nature, to be "to never feel alone" or "communication"... From there, Barthes was seeing how a 'text' can transcend the Author, and in analyzing text, realizing how it comes from the whole world or "..a clash and blend... [of] innumerable centers of culture..." In Foucault, I would like to possibly answer his question of "What is an Author?" and say that it is people. Not in a textbook definition sense, because you can't simply make one 2D and define a soul. It is too complex for that. I think people were starting to try to fit and analyze Authors, people, in a literary sense but the reason why so many complications have arisen is because it simply cannot be done. Every person is unique. People are not something like language and more specifically, words, that can be made up and given a general definition to be shared universally. Why else do you think we have certain Masters of the Arts: Mozart, Michelangelo, etc. that cannot be compared to? They mastered their art so much that their works became, literally, their own. They went past basic concepts in composition and artwork to creating their own advanced interpretations. To reach that level of mastery in something is something I seek for in my lifetime.

And of course, Locke, the final piece in the discussion of communication and language thus far! He is the one that has made me able to tie in everything so far. It's language we are discussing (in a multitude of fancy and multidimensional ways; as seen by each critic)! Rhetoric! In Google (sorry Prof.) rhetoric is defined as "noun: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques" so it completely makes sense that to learn in order to do so, we are starting with the analyses of a building block of rhetoric-- which is language itself.

Sure these essays can be puzzling at times, but after we have unpacked them...especially with Locke... he has been the "key" to my understanding. Ha ha!