In Chapter Ten of Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," I read something I thought I had read before. Locke uses a metaphor which describes words without ideas as being "the bare titles of books, without possessing the contents of them" (825). Burke makes a similar comparison, but inverts the metaphor: "each work of art is the addition of a word to an informal dictionary" (300).
Locke suggests, then, that words carry complex meanings which might require book-length explanations to articulate the significance of the word, though it seems even then the meaning would still be incomplete to Locke.
Burke purports that books and other works of art seek to represent a situation by "[singling] out a pattern of experience that is sufficiently representative of our social structure, that recurs sufficiently often mutandis mutatis, for people to 'need a word for it' and to adopt an attitude towards it" (300).
The goal of art, based on Burke's conception, is remarkably similar to Locke's proposed purpose of language. The most significant difference between Locke's utilitarian view of language and my rough extension of Burke's thoughts on art to language as a whole is the virtual exclusion of figurative language by Locke and his focus on the communication of knowledge or ideas.
This difference I have identified, however, is based on the assumption that the transferal of attitudes as described by Burke extends beyond what is knowable or logical and into the communication of all types of experience which might influence one's attitude such as emotions and feelings.
It seems to me more accurate to include the transferal of emotion or feeling as goals of language in addition to ideas or knowledge. Perhaps the majority of books I have read since childhood haven't transferred knowledge to me that I could access like referencing a book on a shelf. I have retained some ideas and knowledge, certainly, but in the same way I have retained some emotional attachments to titles of books I have read. What I mean to say is that in the same way I can't fully articulate the complex theme of Herman Hesse's Siddhartha, I can't fully articulate the emotions experienced by reading Richard Llewellyn's How Green Was My Valley. Nonetheless I am certain that some attitudes were transferred to me because I still think of them as being in some ways formative.
1 comment:
Peter, I find this synthesis of Burke and Locke to be fascinating, especially on this point:
"It seems to me more accurate to include the transferal of emotion or feeling as goals of language in addition to ideas or knowledge."
In that statement, I think you are saying that language's goals (and, hence, its motivations and its outcomes) are not always or even simply limited to the transfer of knowledge. I say "knowledge" instead of "ideas" because I think that "ideas" technically include some of what you call "emotion or feeling." In other words, you are saying that, for you, language isn't only a cognitive function, did I get that right?
As you have already noted, this resonates so strongly with Burke, but I also wonder if it resonates with both Locke and Richards/Ogden? Could it be part of that unarticulated reason why signification sometimes fails (Locke) and part of the necessity for diagramming the relationship between thoughts and referents (R/O)?
I wonder, too, if there ever will be a time in your life when you do have the words to articulate Siddhartha's theme, based on experiences or growth you undertake later in life? In other words, the lack of articulation now may not necessarily be due to the fact that some feelings are always inexpressible through words ...
I love this idea of knowing as "possessing the contents of." That language is, indeed, visceral and rich!
-Prof. Graban
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.