The Nuance of Definition

A concept that seems to surface a lot in Locke's text is the difference between the philosophical definition of a word and the civil definition of a word.  The civil definition seems, to me, to be the socially accepted definition, one that people commonly refer to and use in everyday conversation.

He also talks about the "rule of propriety," a concept referring to this ambiguity of definition among society's members.  Locke argues that in philosophical settings, there is less blanket acceptance for one definition of a word.  For example, in a common, everyday place, like a breakfast table, the word "food" would probably stand for physical, edible substances that are eaten from a plate in the morning hours, perhaps literal eggs, bacon and toast.  However, in a philosophy classroom, or so Locke says, the word food could have a more debatable reference.  Perhaps, depending on context, it means "nourishment" or "nutrition", or it could even refer to something that humans/living things need to survive.  In section 15 of this excerpt, Locke's empirical thinking is even more evident when he concludes that our socially acceptable names only work because of their nature, because everyone in society accepts their definitions as true and right.

The thought I had while reading this was then, does this essentially refer to higher level thinking and the differences between an intelligent classroom/intellectually stimulating environment and a shallow and face-value based society?  Do the conversations that actually have philosophical value and therefore require participants to think cognitively on perhaps a higher level than usual, do these enriching conversations have a correlation with the confusion of the definition of a single word? Are these conversations, ones that are, according to Locke, set apart and individual from the rest of the uninteresting and unimportant flack we give one another all day long, the only ones in which definitions are required to understand one another? To me, this not only suggests complacency in society, but also limitations as far as the subjects that are appropriate for "public discourse." The fact that Locke separated these two settings of modern society proves the dependance on one another for definition, and not even just the definitions of the language we are using, but the definitions of who we are to each other.  We are constantly shaped and defined by the communication we have with one another and in this, Locke transitions into another point about social stigmas: society invented language.

Although Locke seems somewhat confused about the origins of language, he also seems to define it with the points I just made. In section 13, he struggles with the naming of "substances" and how they came to be (who had the authority to name everything in the world?). In my opinion, the specific origin, or trying to trace language back to one thing, would be almost impossible, as it is so evolutionary and constantly changing and reshaping.  The thing that matters most in the origins of language is social acceptance.  The fact that someone first called the sky "sky" and then everyone started calling it that, THAT is what created language. People and the evolution of society created language. The need to tell people where and what and how and who created language.  The epistemology of language is difficult to gauge, however the exigence of language is rather easy to pin point - people need to communicate, and the fastest and easiest way to do that will always prevail in society.

Bibliography: 

Locke, John. "From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." The Rhetorical Tradition: Reading  from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 817-827.