"Between the symbol and the referent there is no relevant relation other than the indirect one, which consists in its being used by someone to stand for a referent."
Richards and Ogden's | The Meaning of Meaning (pg. 1275)So... As far as I can tell this seems to be a slight parallel to Locke's argument that the signification of words cannot successfully grasp the true, real-world, essence of any actual thing. But directly after offering an example using the word "dog" that seems t help solidify this point, the article begins to make the point that "handiness" is more important than "accuracy" which tosses me back into the hellish whirlwind of confusion. Perhaps my unease is inspired by the fact that I am trying amalgamate Richards and Ogden's theory with that of Locke, but I am not entirely sure.
Another oddity; where Locke saw interaction, conversation, and experience as being those things that lead to the furthering of ones knowledge, Richards and Ogden seem to rely much more heavily on the observational side of knowledge-gathering. There is an example that uses physics experiments as a parallel on page 1277; i found this particularly interesting... a comparison between the scientific method and learning to converse with other human beings. Either way, I look forward to an in-class discussion on the matter, it seems like a little bit of disambiguation as far as vocabulary is concerned might go a long way for me.
2 comments:
I had trouble with this article too. I understood the triangle structure they had put in the article, but overall the essay was not as well organized as Locke's. The progression, I thought, was not very clear between their claims, and I think the subtle differences between the two pieces are lost in this subpar organization. It doesn't help either that they're from different time periods and use different vocabulary to address similar terms in their argument. I don't know, I hope we talk about it Monday in class to clear up soem confusion.
I agree that this was more difficult to follow that was Lockes; however, I wonder if it is more so because of the ideas presented, and not the organization. I think that R&O present ideas that we are not as familiar with. The subtle differences that Tessa mentioned could actually be huge in their opinion, yet the fact that is is so unfamiliar makes us skeptical/ unable to easily accept them. I just wonder if there is a way that a civilization can create a concrete (so not dotted line) between symbol and referent? Or does it become dotted again as soon as someone from a different civilization comes in?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.