Fundamentals of Philosophy of Language

Answer

Fundamentals of Philosophy Languages

This paper explores an argument by Michael Morris against the ideational theory of meaning from a critical viewpoint. The ideational theory of meaning holds that the meaning of a certain word or words denotes the idea that it is frequently connected to or the idea for which it represents. Based on the ideational theory, ideas are private, and hence, independent of language. Language denotes a mechanism for offering signals of private ideas that are visibly recognizable; it conveys the ideas to other people. The meaning of a linguistic expression it derived from its ability to signal ideas. Locke stated: “The use, then, of words is to be sensible marks of ideas; and the ideas they stand for are their proper and immediate signification” (Locke, 1836, p. 112).

For the purpose of this paper, the focus is on the connection between words and ideas. Locke proposes that words do not have inherent meanings and are merely sounds that may be significant or inconsequential (Locke, 2017). In order to determine the ideas that words signify, it is imperative to establish a connection between the sounds (words) and an individual’s ideas. Morris’ criticism of the theory lies in the factor of connection or dependability between words and ideas.

The basis of Morris’ argument is that the relationship that supposedly exists between words and what they mean or indicate is subjective. Hence, the relationship is not founded on rational or reasonable grounds. The first premise is that it is practically impossible to perceive the ideas that exist in a person’s mind. As a result, the only way to identify the ideas that are signified by an individual’s words is to rely on a supposed reliable and dependable relationship between certain words and specific ideas. The second premise is that the existence of such a relationship of reliability and dependability between certain words and ideas makes it possible for one to make inferences from the existence of a certain word to the existence of a specific idea in an individual’s mind. Thirdly, the existence of an arbitrary relationship between words and what they mean or indicate makes it impossible to make presumptions concerning the ideas that certain words signify. If this perspective is to be adopted, it is impractical to deduce the ideas of a person based on Locke’s ideational theory. Ultimately, real communication would be impossible.

The argument is valid. However, one objection to Morris’ argument is that majority of the people who are capable of communication are largely reasonable individuals. Therefore, it would be a logical assumption that there is a solid relationship between their spoken words and the ideas in their minds. When reasonable people communicate, they aim to express themselves in terms of such things as their feelings, ideas, or thoughts. The most effective way to accomplish this expression would be to use words that are directly aligned with one’s ideas.

The argument that Morris presents is that there is no solid connection between a person’s words and his or her ideas; hence, it is incorrect to infer that a person’s ideas are signaled by one’s words. In support of this argument, it is impossible to look into one’s mind and perceive the ideas that one actually carries in his/her head. Therefore, one cannot conclude that the words that one uses in a conversation are representative of the ideas that the individual actually has. In addition, it is possible for people to use words that do not reflect what they are actually thinking in their minds. Hence, in such a scenario it cannot be presumed that the words that one uses signal one’s ideas or meanings of the sounds (words) that are spoken.

Furthermore, the concept of incapacity to suitably express oneself is largely common in the contemporary society. This means that many people often lack the words to fully express their inner thoughts and feelings or ideas. As a result, the sounds that one makes during a conversation are often hardly an indicator of what a person actually wants to express. More explicitly, there are cases when the words that a person uses have no connection whatsoever with the ideas that one actually has in the mind.

Based on the evaluations of the argument presented by Morris against the ideational theory of meaning, it is evident that there is a sound argument. Morris disputes the notion that words (sounds) have a reliable and dependable relationship with an individual’s ideas. In support of this, the evaluations have established that in many cases the sounds that a person makes do not necessarily signify the ideas that one has in his or her head. The most important factor to note is that the relationship between words and ideas is hardly dependable; rather it is arbitrary (Morris, 2007). If one examines Locke’s account from this perspective, it would invalidate the authenticity of any form of communication that exists among people. In conclusion, a different criterion to explain the concept of language and communication should be established. (2017) study employed, there are very little room for generalizing the study’s findings.