Beauty in the Obscurity

Define, define, define... Let's break this down into scientific terms, shall we?

Locke seems to harbor frustration towards the fact that complex, intangible words don't necessarily have the same meaning for everyone. This diversity is seen as a failure in communication, though I'm not sure I agree. He writes, "Though the names glory and gratitude be the same in every man's mouth through a whole country, yet the complex collective idea which every one thinks on or intends by that name, is apparently very different in men using the same language" (819 8:5). In creative writing, that obscurity and uncertainty of defining words is a thing of beauty, rather than frustration. It seems a power, rather than an inhibition, of language to allow a word to designate a variety of meanings. Furthermore, more words can be used to define that singular word; one doesn't have to simply say a word and leave it dangling in mid-air with no context. Do we have to agree on a universal meaning, especially when it comes to "moral words"? (819 9:3).

"Hence it comes to pass that men's names of very compound ideas, such as for the most part are moral words, have seldom in two different men the same precise signification" (818 6:6). I think it's interesting to note who Locke was directing his ideas towards, in comparison to many of the Classical authors we've read before. It seems as though when they wrote or spoke to a very specific audience- students of a certain school, perhaps, or a group of men all in the same profession- this desire to define the language they used would seem unnecessary. Locke's audience seems to be much wider and diverse, implying the desire to reach clarity before continuing, an interesting note for us as rhetoricians to keep in mind.