The animals' cause : a selection of papers contributed to the international anti-vivisection and animal protection congress, held at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, London, July 6th-10th, 1909 / edited by L. Lind-af-Hageby.

International Anti-Vivisection and Animal Protection Congress (1909 : London, England)

Date:: [1909?]

Credit: The animals' cause : a selection of papers contributed to the international anti-vivisection and animal protection congress, held at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, London, July 6th-10th, 1909 / edited by L. Lind-af-Hageby. Source: Wellcome Collection.

343/388 (page 339)

$HUMANE LANGUAGE. By HOWABD WILLIAMS, M.A., Author of “Ethics of Diet.” “What’s in a name?’’ queries the Shakespearian Juliet, and the off-hand question of the celebrated heroine of the stage has become a sort of stereotyped formula of what may be styled linguistic indifferentism. Profounder thinkers have regarded this all-important matter very differently. What is not in a name? is, in fact, the inevitable deflection derived from a deeper study of human psychology and of the history of human beliefs, superstitions, prejudices, and fatal errors of all kinds. The disastrous influence, the universal depotism of unphilosophised language—with its original necessary imperfections and, more deplorable, its abuse and misuse, -whether purposed or unpurposed—it is not possible to over- estimate. Mere names and words and terms and phrases (originat- ing arbitrarily and fortuitously for the most part) have formed and maintained opinions of the great mass of the human species, which have been reflected, often with the most tremendous results, in human action. “ The idols \_eidola—i.e., delusive phantoms or appearances] of the market [i.e., of common life and language],” affirms the founder of the inductive method in philosophy, “ give the greatest disturb- ance and, from a tacit agreement among mankind with regard to the imposition of words and names, insinuate themselves into the mind. Por words, generally, are given according to vulgar concep- tion, and distinguish things by such differences as the common people are capable of. But when a more acute understanding, or a more careful observation, would distinguish things better, [stereotyped] words fight against it. The remedy of this lies in definitions; but these themselves are, in many respects, imperfect a3 consist- ing of words—for words generate words, however men may imagine they have a command over them, and say that they will speak in the common language and think with the wise. All is in- sufficient to prevent their seducing incantation, in numerous re- spects ; their doing violence to the understanding, and recoiling upon it, from whence they proceeded. This evil, therefore, demands a new and deeper remedy.” Thus Francis Bacon, in his great philoso- phical treatise upon “ The Advancement of Learning.’’ Yet more emphatically and more thoroughly does the second most important teacher in earlier English philosophy, in his justly famed “ Essay Concerning Human Understanding,’’ insist upon this profound truth in his significant chapter “ On the Abuse of Words ” (which' should be carefully pondered by every would-be “progressive”). “ Of this I am sure,” declares Locke, “ that by constant and$