Influences on Rhetoric

The introduction to the Enlightenment touched on some areas of study that influence rhetoric that I didn't (consciously) realize were relatively new fields. For instance, "as experimental science and inductive reasoning replaced deductive logic as the standard of inquiry, the Ramistic distinction became moot" (792). Psychology seems to have had the greatest impact on Enlightenment rhetoric as Bacon, Descartes, and Locke all touch on mental faculties to an extent. "The rhetorical theories of the Enlightenment are intimately linked to the intellectual and social developments that shaped the modern world" (792). This notion of real-world application and influence is a relief to me as the seemingly ungrounded study of rhetoric up until the Enlightenment period has been a source of frustration. The rise of democracy and its predominance is also something that I am looking forward to seeing influence rhetoric in this next era of study.

The Royal Society actually seems like a group of insane people who want us all to go back to speaking like neanderthals. However, I empathize with their want to make rhetoric less about superfluous words and more about the message, but I think their desire to create a "real character" language is perhaps taking it a bit too far. Locke seems like a great intermediate for this opposition.

Locke's teachings on rhetoric make the most sense to me, by far, of any of the rhetoricians we've studied up until now. He emphasizes the idea that words should be used to describe things, and that when a word is used, a specific thing is materialized in the hearer's mind. What I find the most pleasing about Locke's views on rhetoric is the practicality of them. He pushes for a specific concisity, while also realizing that words mean different things to different people, and that "gold" brings forward the image of many things to many people. He stresses that a man "is fain often to use twenty words, to express what another man signifies in one" (826). He also realizes that "words have very uncertain significations" (823). Therefore, some men will need to use the twenty words to convey what another man could say in one because their grasp of language is not the same as his counterpart.

"What Mary Didn't Know" and its Rhetorical Objections

Considering John Locke's philosophical orientation, it's not surprising that his rhetorical discussions include elements that are vital to contemporary philosophy. One particular section in the reading made me think of a popular philosophical debate I've discussed in past philosophy classes. Locke writes, “He that puts not constantly the same sign for the same idea, but uses the same words sometimes in one and sometimes in another signification, ought to pass in the schools and conversation for as fair a man, as he does in the market and exchange, who sells several things under the same name.” This logic is used in many refutations of Frank Jackson's Knowledge argument. The argument, which aims to discredit physicalism by noting that not all knowledge can be gained through physical scientific inquiry, contains the following thought experiment, often referred to as “What Mary Didn't Know:”

“Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?”

Ontologically, the argument goes:

(P1) Any and every piece of physical knowledge in regard to human color vision has been obtained (by the test subject, Mary) prior to her release from the black-and-white room. She has all the physical knowledge on the subject.

(P2) Upon leaving the room and witnessing color first-hand, she obtains new knowledge.

(C) There was some knowledge about human color vision she did not have prior to her release. Therefore, not all knowledge is physical knowledge.

The philosophers get rhetorical in refutations of this theory. They claim that Jackson is doing what Locke warned against, using the same word to mean different things. The word in question here is “knowledge.” Laurence Demirow and David Lewis claim that Jackson fudges together the words knowledge and ability. Experiencing a color, they claim, does not provide Mary with any new facts or any new knowledge, but it rather provides her with an ability. She can now recognize red, imagine red, remember red, but none of these things are facts, they are abilities that have not added to her scientific knowledge banks. Experience can lead to ability, not knowledge, and confusing the concepts of knowledge and ability is what gets Jackson in trouble. Consider a piano. Imagine someone has spent years studying the intricacies of music theory, notation, keyboard layout etc, but has never actually sat at a piano and played it. When he finally is given a keyboard, he cannot play it at first but after a long period of practicing he can. He can now play songs and yet his factual base of musical knowledge has not expanded. His ability does not affect his knowledge. Physicalists claim that what Mary gains through experience is ability, not fact, and so her scientific, physical understanding is not proven incomplete by her new found ability, rather her knowledge of color has always been complete and the ability she gains through experience simply has nothing to do with knowledge. The philosophers point out Jackson's conceptual flaw by examining his rhetoric. Only by understanding that Jackson equates knowledge acquisition with skill acquisition do we see that his logic is flawed and thus, the rhetorical pitfall elucidated by John Locke still plays a role in the discourse of contemporary philosophy.

Interpretation of Words

Throughout the introduction I found my mind focusing primarily on style and how it affects rhetoric. However, when I began to read Locke, my mind focused on "words." Similar to ideas within Jennie's blog, I found myself thinking about how specific words can be interpreted and the effects that has on persuasion, which seems to give rhetoric its power.

Each time period we have covered contains different approaches to rhetoric. These approaches seem very interesting, but I often hear about how "flawed" the English language is. How much is lost within the translation of many of these pieces? In what ways were these texts interpreted within those time periods and cultures? What "words" did they use that carried the most weight? Even within modern-day America we have many different cultures, each reader interpreting texts differently. Within our class alone, there are most likely a wide variety of political views and cultural backgrounds, each pointing our interpretations in different directions. Each of us use different words within our speech and text. These are just a few of the thoughts which flooded my mind while reading Locke.

Though my mind was filled within different thoughts about words, language, and cultures, my views on rhetoric remain the same. Rhetoric, actually, seems to be even more intriguing. Despite the many varying faculties of our race, the principles of rhetoric remain the same.

Words and Their Complexity

We have seen before how language is a powerful tool (Gorgais) in rhetoric, but Locke takes the idea of language a step further by looking specifically at words. His whole take on words was quite intriguing since he believed “sensation, a universal human phenomenon, generates simple ideas, which are also universally the same. To these ideas we give arbitrary signs: words.” (p.815).  However, Locke brings attention to the fact that, “…it is possible to have an incomplete or inaccurate idea associated with those words. It is even possible to have an incomplete idea of something within our experience, for a word may designate, for some people, certain features of the thing signified and, for others, different features” (p. 815).

To me then, the interpretation of words could be a hindrance in rhetoric.

In rhetoric, words are used to persuade an audience, whether written or spoken, usually about a complex idea. “But when a word stands for a very complex idea that is compounded and decompounded, it is not easy for men to form and retain that idea so exactly, as to make the name in common use stand for the same precise idea, without any the least variation” (p.818, second column). “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” (p.819, first column). How can someone be a successful rhetorician, then, if words can mean different things to different people?

I found myself agreeing with Locke and the complexity words have because I know I have misinterpreted words (and their meanings) more than once when in conversation with someone, leading to a frustrating debate about what someone is trying to really say. So as a rhetorician, it is even more important to be aware of your audience and carefully choose words that will make you a successful rhetorician in both the public and private realm.

Words and a Complex Network of Ideas

Gorgias discussed the power language and words have, but Locke seems to expand this view by making us question what a true definition for something is. He brings up interesting points in terms of how one thinks about menial terms that one comes in contact with; however, Locke seems to urge his readers to look from different points of view. Easy enough, but words come with a complex network of ideas and beliefs from one person to the next in terms of how they define it. Locke writes, “White and sweet, yellow and bitter, carry a very obvious meaning with them, which everyone precisely comprehends, or easily perceives he is ignorant of, and seeks to be informed. But what precise collection of simple ideas modesty or frugality stand for, in another’s use, is not so certainly known” (823: 18, right hand column). While many perceive simple qualities like colour and texture easy to discuss and describe, qualities concerning one’s character or classifications represent different things to different people; therefore, one should become aware of these and make their intent known in contextualisations. How one uses words also seems relevant not only in the public sphere, but also in the private. The idea of the salons being a private brought into a public setting was intriguing to think about in terms of how one uses language to express their ideas and how they could be misconstrued.This notion of a failure to communicate or understand occurs numerous time on a daily basis, but it’s also important to look at the context in which it is being spoken. I’m reminded of the “etiquette” book dedicated to salons; while women were not to speak of things within the domestic sphere, it would seem that a complex network of meanings could be associated with them that others would not understand (ie men). 

The Imperfection of Communication

Words mean different things to different people, and these differences in interpretation really suck when you're trying to communicate complex ideas. I think that pretty much synthesizes much of Locke's argument. He informs us that "the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their significations" (Locke 817 9.1). He then goes on to explain that this unavoidable confusion is most pronounced where a great number of ideas converge, no standard in nature exists, a standard is involved which is not understood fully, and the word in use does not match the essence of a thing (Locke 818 9.5). Only simple ideas escape the majority of this confusion, as they represent "one single perception" (Locke 823 9.18). From Locke's point of view, humans are stumbling about with incomplete knowledge and, most importantly for rhetoric, without the language necessary to make meaning clearly known beyond a recognition of simple things like the color yellow. As ideas become more substantial, words become even less able to clearly portray them. How inspiring.

However, I can't help but agree with Locke on many counts. It is difficult at times to decipher exactly what other people mean when they speak or write, as illustrated by the common need to define terms and give further explanation suggest. I would, though, insist to a greater extent on the connection between unclear communication and divergent thought processes, knowledge, and beliefs. Humans don't all think the same way or the same things, and the words they have devised to communicate and share with one another reflect the same lack of accord. Even simple ideas like the color yellow are not truly uniform and have a depth of complexity. What shade of yellow, after all, does the word yellow signify? But the same imperfection of communication must still be acknowledged, whether the fault is primarily in words or thoughts. Now, let's examine these imperfections at work within a concept that many deem important: love.

What is love between partners? Whenever, I hear someone use the word love when talking about a girlfriend/boyfriend/acquaintance they adore I want to tell them to pull his/her pony to a stop so we can examine the terrain. What, sir or madam, do you refer to when you say you love someone? Does it have to imply a certain closeness of the spirit or mind, a bond that is eternal and cannot be broken? Does it mean that one would give his life to his partner? Check out the Jane Eyre video below to see what two people who see love in this way may take it to mean. Or can love mean something else, perhaps more attuned to a close physical bond with someone else that can be accomplished without much emotional connection but with a great deal of physical dependence? In essence, love can mean enchantment with someone's body. After all, people still refer to "making love" or "love making." See the second video below where the word "love" is replaced by "like" to illustrate one attempt to differentiate between types of relationships (WARNING: That video is suggestive, though it has no nudity or revealing sex scenes.).

 

Of course, there are many, many shades of grey when using the term "love." My love may not be your love, and the term cannot do exactly what we mean justice. But again, I do not believe that all the blame lies with the terminology. It's also about us, and what we think, feel, and believe. We would need an indecipherable amount of terms to differentiate between all of our beliefs about love, and it's simply not possible. For one, we would be unable to understand everyone's views in spite of the different terms. It would be like explaining colors to a blind man (Locke 818 9.5). And so, we must remain limited by both our words and ideas.

Defying Dictionaries

Locke writes, “Who of all these has established the right signification of the word, gold? Or who shall be the judge to determine?” (pg 821, bottom of 1^st column). Up to this point, Locke discusses the fickle nature of words—that is, we can’t convey our exact ideas to other people because we all have different perceptions of the world, but we all use the same words to describe that world. And therefore, those words don’t mean exactly the same thing. Locke then questions (as we see in the quote) whether anyone really has the “right” definition for a word. Who’s to say my general idea of “dog” (some sort of long-haired, medium-sized, and outdoor-living canine) is better than Sally’s general idea of “dog” (some sort of short-haired, small-sized, and indoor-living canine)?

And yet, some people seemingly think that this dilemma of word obscurity could somehow be solved by educating people about the “proper” meaning of words. Enter stage left: the dictionary. I certainly think that dictionaries can provide a good, starting framework when discussing the meaning of words, but we shouldn’t take them as the final word on a definition. Besides, many dictionaries exist, and they don’t all have the exact same definitions of words.

I think that Locke’s piece might have even changed our concept of the word, “definition.” Basically, one major take-away point from this reading is that meanings and definitions are not fixed—which opens up a vast opportunity for us to redefine words and to use words to change people’s perspectives. Have you ever thought, “Oh, I was going to use this word in a particular way, but according to the dictionary, I can’t”? Well, now you can! Of course, according to Locke, one of the abuses of words occurs when “words are diverted from their common use” (pg 826, subheading in first column). However, that is where rhetoric comes in; we must write about the definitions of certain words in order to convey to and persuade people of our changed ideas about the word. Just think of the word “time.” How you define “time” probably reflects your larger worldview, to a certain extent. For example: check out Einstein’s Dreams by Alan Lightman or the video below: 

On the surface, “time” might appear to be a simple word, but it really is not. If we took the time (no pun intended) to explore our vocabulary, we would probably find words that, similarly, can be paradigm-shifters.