Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Locke
When i was reading i came across an interesting part. Locke says for every particular thing to have a name is impossible. He says that it is necessary to name things but is it beyond the power of human capacity to frame distinct ideas of all the particular things we meet with? He says like it you were have to name every sheep, crow, plant, tree, etc. you see it would be impossible. He also says that it is useless. He also said "Men in vain would heap up names of particular things, that would not serve them to communicate their thoughts. Men learn names and use them in talk with others..." I kind of agreed with him on this one because its not neccessary to name every particular thing. I think it would make things a little more confusing and pointless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is what I think he means that if you worry too much about the little things that you won't have time to deal with big things. I think he means that sometimes the little this are easier to deal with so we surround ourselves with them. Naming everything looking close at the small things inorder to avoide the larger things that we must do. I am not sure that this right or clear but that is what I think that he means.
I see your point however dont you think that if we had to describe everything because it was not named then it would create more confusion? I mean one person may be trying to describe something and the other person may precieve it as another....
Post a Comment