Locke

After reading Locke on the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I must admit that I am somewhat puzzled at his outlook on words and the effectiveness of using words. As a EWM major here at Florida State we are taught in rhetoric that a person words are a type of perfection that allows the "Rhetor" to communicate effectively with the audience. Now we have Locke that is now explaining that our words have no meaning and no real significance in accordance with the actions and reactions from human understanding. I think I do understand somewhat that words would never have any value or significance if we didn’t give words a specific meaning. For example, the words love, polite, food, cat wouldn’t mean anything to us if some had not already placed meaning to those words and then taught us what the meaning was and how it correlates to the word. But is this all because of human understanding/nature or philosophical/ theoretical aspect?
 
After reading this article I do feel that it could be comprised of a bit of all areas. I do agree with Locke that the communicating and recording of our thoughts does have a connection to our human ability to effectively do these things on a everyday basis, and conflict, stress, and certain situations does play its part in those role of communicating, so now does this constitute as an imperfection.

I’m not exactly sure, but it seems as if this guy has some real issue about words, or maybe it’s just difficult for me to connect with this form of theory because I have just been taught that words have power and significance and it seems strange to take that away. It is however difficult to wrap your mind around new ideas and concepts unless we embrace with an open mind.

I believe that's what Locke did in this article. Just because it's a little unorthodox doesn't make it wrong.