[See comments & questions below] On page 197 Taylor writes, “In the moral domain, Locke . . . builds on Descartes’s model of rational control and defines a task of self-remaking which falls to the punctual self. Rather than following the telos of nature, we become constructors of our own character. “This emphasis on constructive activity leads to a new understanding of language, which one can see again arising in Hobbes and Locke. It is an offshoot of the nominalist theories: words are ultimately given their meaning arbitrarily through definitions which attach them to certain things or ideas. But the function of language is to aid the construction of thought. We need language to build an adequate picture of things. We couldn’t match the world with a painstaking combination of individual bits of perception, individual ideas. Through language, we can combine them in whole bunches, in whole classes, and this alone makes it possible to have genuine knowledge. “It follows, of course, that words can also be terribly dangerous. They can be that through which we utterly lose contact with reality, if they are not properly anchored in experience through definitions. That is why both Hobbes and Locke are wary of them and at times almost obsessionally anxious that our words not run away with us. This fear of losing control is the natural outgrowth of the role given to language here: to help us to master and marshall our thoughts. As Condillac says later, developing the Lockean doctrine, language gives us ‘empire sur notre imagination’. “This centring on the constructive powers of language undergoes a further crucial development in the late eighteenth century. Language and in general our representational powers come to be seen not only or mainly as directed to the correct portrayal of an independent reality but also as our way of manifesting through expression what we are, and our place within things. And on the new understanding of ourselves as expressive beings, this manifestation is also seen as a self-completion. This expressive revolution identifies and exalts a new poietic power, that of the creative imagination. I will return to this below; here I want to say only that this new shift further increases the importance of our poietic capacities. They are seen as even more central to human life. And this is the basis for the growing interest and fascination in them in all their forms – in language and artistic creation – which rises at times almost to obsession in our century.” Comments & questions: Undoubtedly everyone else knows what “poietic” means, but I had to look it up: “Poeitic” relates to production or the arts of production. Poietic knowledge is distinguished from practical or theoretical knowledge. Thus, when we go on a search to find ourselves and find something, come to conclusions about who we are, is this practical knowledge we have obtained, or have we created something poeitically that may not bear an identical relationship to the natural world? We might ask a similar set of questions about our political philosophy. We are happy with it – quite sure it is the truth – but does it adhere to nature or is it something we or more likely some predecessor has created poeitically? And to what extent does poietic power relate to the writing of poetry? I suspect Taylor would say that insofar as our poetry gives us greater understanding of our selves, we may suspect that it may not be merely descriptive but poietic as well. Lawrence -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 6/15/2006