The Chicken or the Egg?

     What really came first? This question, so commonly asked of the chicken and the egg, is being subtly asked by both Derrida and Locke regarding to language and knowledge. Though they do not outright ask this question, their philosophies caused me to ask this question, to really sit and think which one comes first. Knowledge is gained by learning more and more language, more and more words; and by learning what the abstract and concrete ideas are pertaining to those words. But the older and more knowledgeable we become, the more language can make sense to us and the more language we will learn.

To know, to merely say, a word does not make one knowledgeable about that word and the ideas attached to it. But without first saying that word, one cannot become knowledgeable about its meaning. Oh the confusion!

Locke refers to words as sounds and names, that when heard, signify the meaning of something for us. (Locke 817, Proposition 4) So in this case, the language comes first. We hear the word "cat" over and over again as little kids while our parents point to a little furry animal that, up to this point, only know how to touch and grab hold of. You hear the language time and time again, and eventually resonate the meaning of the word and from there gain the knowledge that these little furry animals with pointy ears and whiskers are called cats.

"Differance is neither a word nor a concept," (Derrida 279).

Oh Derrida, thank you for confusing the topic even more. We know that 'difference' is actually a word. But its a word with so many ideas attached to it that it can take on multiple meanings and uses. To use this word as a part of your language, but not be knowledgeable about all of its abstract concepts and ideas, I believe Derrida would call you foolish. I believe she would say, to use language without complete knowledge of that language is really to misuse language. In this case, the knowledge comes first and it is not until one has complete knowledge of a word, of a language, that the language can make any true sense when spoken.

I have to say, I am swaying more towards the theory I found in Derrida's work. Spouting off sounds to hear oneself speak is merely that: the creation of sound. Not of knowledge. To know language, does not mean to just know how to say a word. Language comes with the knowledge of what those words mean and the concepts and ideas that are attached to the language. I am curious to see if anyone sways towards the theory I found in Locke...please help me in determining which is a better theory to attach myself to.