The Rhetorical Tradition details a significant shift of ideals in the field of rhetoric during the Enlightenment, which reflected in many ways the prioritization of a quest for perfection. John Locke embodies this spirit with his criticisms of the use of rhetoric in learning, and insistences that it only muddies the root of knowledge that credible scholars should be striving for. The debate between excessively ornamental language and direct prose finds Locke on the side of the latter, as in his the excerpt from his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding when he elaborates upon the imperfection of words.
According to Locke's theory, people all possess the same principal ideas and it is only through the filter of language that these thoughts become individualized. In other words, there must be perfection in the original idea and this perfection is obscured through the lens of personal memory and diction. I found this to be a particularly fascinating concept, one that was only enhanced through Locke's discerning between the civil and philosophical use of language. Though Locke was not by any means a rhetorician himself, he did seem to think rhetoric was valuable in its own context. That said, he clearly believes that rhetoric presents the forum for failed perfection in communication because of the way that unspecific language breeds doubt and insecurity in ideas. Civil communication on the other hand is to the point.
I also thought that Locke's examples presented an intriguing array. For instance, his discussion of the words 'liquor' and 'gold' as obscure because of their various uses in language reflect the depth of Locke's perspective. When it comes to perfection, he argues that simple ideas are the easiest to construe through language. This seemed to be common sense to me, and I would question Locke in his conclusions. Is simplicity the equivalent of perfection? By limiting the scope of perfect communication to a base level of exchange does not in my mind present the opportunity for intellectual stimulation. Locke claims that language is abused by figurative speech, but I think that philosophical banter is an essential part of intellectual progress, as it can bring about truly creative ideas. They may not always be perfect, but I would argue that imperfection can be refined and built upon, and rhetoric in this way, obscurity should not be labeled entirely negative.
I agree with the analysis you provided on Locke, and that he believed individualized work only became so with the filter of language. This was very interesting to read, because there was a huge emphasis put on words and language itself, in order to create rhetoric. The emphasis put upon the importance and necessity for perfection was also interesting, as areas such as grammar and syntax held more precedence in the world of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the class discussion today was extremely helpful in establishing a more definite picture of Locke and how he sought to reinvent the purpose of rhetoric. The frame of the Enlightenment makes the context of what Locke and his contemporaries sought to accomplish through their progressive ideas on rhetoric and desire for perfection more compelling because of the revolutionary temperament of the times.
ReplyDelete