'Q', Hobbes, and Jargon

In Chapter VIII of Leviathan (A.T. 27), Hobbes reiterates his notion of absurdity as earlier defined in Chapter V. Here, discussing issues of discourse, Hobbes defines absurdity as “when men speak such words as, put together, have in them no significance at all, but are fallen upon by some through misunderstanding of the words they have received and repeat by rote” (Hobbes 46). After having discussed these matters in our Wednesday session, and finding myself enthralled by the questions raised on the subject of conscious discourse, i.e. if the observation of the common niceties of speech in greeting and casual conversation are, in fact, a conscious engagement, I was moved to undertake a little outside research. As such, I turned to my library whereupon I happened across a collection of lectures presented by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch to the students of Cambridge University between the years of 1913 and 1914. Later, compiled and published under the title On the Art of Writing, Quiller-Couch’s observations on language and the utility of discourse have become guideposts for writers that are second to none.

Most relevant to our purposes is his interlude “On Jargon.” Therein, Q. (as many of his contemporaries referred to him) clarifies, in no uncertain terms, just what this jargon or, as Hobbes would have it, absurdity actually entails. He notes two main vices: “The first is that it uses circumlocution rather than short, straight speech. It says ‘In the case of John Jenkins deceased, the coffin’ rather than ‘John Jenkins’s coffin’: and its yay is not yay, neither is its nay nay: but its answer is in the affirmative or in the negative […]. The second vice is that it habitually chooses vague, woolly, abstract nouns rather than concrete ones.” For Q., then, and I think Hobbes would agree based on his definition, jargon or absurdity is not so much a product of unthought or unimagined discourse but of thoughtless speech and poorly constructed discourse.

Hence, I don’t believe this issue of conscious discourse is so much a matter of are we thinking when we say hello to a familiar face in the hall, to use Mr. Bodayle’s example; rather, I think it’s a matter of whether or not what we’re saying actually merits being said. Overall, it’s not a question of are we talking, it’s a question of if what we’re saying is actually worth the talking.