Locke and Human Understanding

Locke’s idea that words come with an incomplete and inaccurate idea and connotation is something that truly fascinates me. How in one language, a concept or idea could be so clearly understood, but its origin is lost in translation is baffling. How can a world so complex as ours not is able to narrow an idea down to the root and find the ability to deliver the same message in all different languages, mediums, ideas, etc. Equally interesting is the concept that certain experience can have the same impact on an individual, which another person could have a different opinion on the matter.

Locke explains the concept well in his line “Moreover, complex ideas are formed by the connections among simple ideas; words are attached to these complex ideas to keep connections from being merely personal and ephemeral and to allow us to communicate them with others.” My thought is, what if these simple and complex ideas are different for each person?
 
What if my notion of a complex idea is only a simple idea to someone else, and vice versa?  At what point was there a universal understanding that everyone thinks the same thing? I respect Locke for “attacking rhetoric for increasing ambiguities through excessive ornamentation”. I feel he describes this very well. More often than not, a concept because a moot point because of all the fluff and excess that is brought along with it. In addition, I respect the fact that he states “knowledge itself is independent of language.” How often is it so hard to communicate a subject, when in one’s mind it is so clear? Sometimes, there are just no justifiable words for a subject matter that seems so matter of fact in the mind of the thinker.

In Locke’s essay, he discusses the abuse of words. As much as I appreciate rhetoric and see all of the positive aspects that it brings, I feel at times rhetoric is the cause of the abuse of words. How often do political leaders overindulge a concept and give ideas false ornamentation, when in reality their voice would be heard in much fewer statements. Ultimately, a person’s own discourse dictates how they feel about a subject and what concepts and ideas are drawn of thoughts. A mind blowing, intellectual speech to one person might just be a man spewing words to another. This is the concept I feel Locke is trying to show. That no matter how we as speakers use our rhetorical presence, the audience is only capable of taking away what they want to understand, which can vary from person to person, race to race, language to language.

Locke, John. “From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 814-827.