Locke refers to language and words as signs and symbols. He believes that ideas are made up in one’s mind and then later attached a “symbol” to identify the idea. While you can probably understand there is a lot of confusion that comes with this.
What if more than one idea shares the same word? What if multiple words share the same idea? What about people who speak different languages across the world? All of these questions were addressed throughout the essay (Locke 817). These are considered language barriers, hindering the population and the audience from completely understanding the idea at hand. The thing is, no one will fully understand the nature of the idea besides the person who came up with it. Think about it, how does one fully explain their idea, in a way that is comprehensive to the rest of the world? You can’t. Words get lost in translation and language because of the translations between languages. There are words in some language that haven’t been made up yet in another, therefore hindering the communication process.
Ideas are attached to language and therefore allow people to learn the language of the idea it represents. This is literally how people communicate. Every single word we use has an idea attached to it.
Derrida comes into play when she states that knowledge comes first. She says that without full understanding and knowledge of an idea, there is no way to understand the language that attaches to it. This is a communication barrier. Misuse of a word or phrase can result in the misunderstanding of the concept at hand. A word can have multiple different ideas or meaning attached to it, and it is not until one truly understand the knowledge of it completely that they can correctly use it in communication.
Derrida’s and Locke’s theories seem very similar to me, although I believe Derrida thinks more in depth about the situation at hand. While they both agree that knowledge and ideas come first, Derrida then goes on to say that knowledge is the most important because otherwise you can make yourself look stupid. Think about that. There are so many examples of people giving speeches or speaking in everyday conversation about topics they do not fully understand. Sure, they know enough to hold a conversation, or to sway the audience’s viewpoint, but it is not until you fully understand every part of that idea that you can communicate it well and completely. There could be someone in the audience or in your conversation that knows the idea better than you and points it out, making you look like you don’t have the knowledge.
Hi Haley,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I reflected on my own analysis of Derrida and Locke. I think you did a great job simplifying some of Derrida's more complex ideas about words and language by focusing on the basic principle that knowledge is the key to communication. As Locke pointed out, the whole purpose of language and words is to communicate our ideas to one another. While this idea is simple, it also highlights the tendency for confusion. You asked many important questions that confront the tendency for confusion of language like "What if more than one idea shares the same word? What if multiple words share the same idea? What about people who speak different languages across the world?" I think this makes it very obvious how words and language, which should work to communicate and express ideas, can instead lead to disruption of mental processes. I liked how you went on to describe how Derrida works to shed light on the importance to really grasp the knowledge and deeper meaning of an idea in order to attempt to communicate it. Overall, great job!
-Clare Davis