Hobbes - interpretation of language
Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan - Initial Post
Why does Thomas Hobbes start the Leviathan, a political discourse on social contracts, with a discussion about language? The plethora of words, in the English language alone, is enough to boggle the mind with wonder. The variance does not stop at the scope of words but is also apparent within the definition of words. “Men give different names, to one and the same thing, from the difference of their own passions” (58). Hobbes believes that words and their meanings are so diverse that without reasoning a single particular meaning of a word we have nothing to base claims about these words because we could be disputing an entirely different meaning of the same word. As Hobbes notes, “in reasoning, a man must take heed of words” (25). Through speech we can come to a deliberation of a particular meaning, or at least explain what we mean by the word and then we can continue to make statements about that word. We must rationalize the meanings and not take them at face value. Hobbes also notes that “ignorance of the signification of words; which is, want of understanding, disposeth man to trust, not only the they know not, but also the errors; and which is more, the non-sense of them they trust: for neither error nor non-sense, can without perfect understanding of words, be detected” (58).
Machiavelli, by contrast, had a tendency of not defining words in the context of his texts, thus leaving them ambiguous and absurd, according to Thomas Hobbes. But should ambiguity always be construed as absurdity? Yes, it is important to know what context one is speaking in but it is a bit enthusiastic to believe that a conversation can exist on a level where every meaning is sufficiently defined. For even in definitions of words, the defining words may be misperceived. What exactly is the definition of is? To a certain degree, ambiguity may leave an air of healthy interpretation into a dynamic world. The world 200 years from today will clearly have different priorities than the year 2005, as the year 2005 has different priorities than the year 1805. As this diversity is apparent chronologically, it can also be seen on the horizontal international level. In an ever-increasing globalized society, intercultural communication is important and it must be noted that some words don’t interpret into another language. My point is that ambiguity is necessary for interpretation as time and circumstances change.
Why does Thomas Hobbes start the Leviathan, a political discourse on social contracts, with a discussion about language? The plethora of words, in the English language alone, is enough to boggle the mind with wonder. The variance does not stop at the scope of words but is also apparent within the definition of words. “Men give different names, to one and the same thing, from the difference of their own passions” (58). Hobbes believes that words and their meanings are so diverse that without reasoning a single particular meaning of a word we have nothing to base claims about these words because we could be disputing an entirely different meaning of the same word. As Hobbes notes, “in reasoning, a man must take heed of words” (25). Through speech we can come to a deliberation of a particular meaning, or at least explain what we mean by the word and then we can continue to make statements about that word. We must rationalize the meanings and not take them at face value. Hobbes also notes that “ignorance of the signification of words; which is, want of understanding, disposeth man to trust, not only the they know not, but also the errors; and which is more, the non-sense of them they trust: for neither error nor non-sense, can without perfect understanding of words, be detected” (58).
Machiavelli, by contrast, had a tendency of not defining words in the context of his texts, thus leaving them ambiguous and absurd, according to Thomas Hobbes. But should ambiguity always be construed as absurdity? Yes, it is important to know what context one is speaking in but it is a bit enthusiastic to believe that a conversation can exist on a level where every meaning is sufficiently defined. For even in definitions of words, the defining words may be misperceived. What exactly is the definition of is? To a certain degree, ambiguity may leave an air of healthy interpretation into a dynamic world. The world 200 years from today will clearly have different priorities than the year 2005, as the year 2005 has different priorities than the year 1805. As this diversity is apparent chronologically, it can also be seen on the horizontal international level. In an ever-increasing globalized society, intercultural communication is important and it must be noted that some words don’t interpret into another language. My point is that ambiguity is necessary for interpretation as time and circumstances change.
posted by Holly at 8:46 PM
<< Home