Locke argues that the most verifiable and reliable words are those connecting to simple ideas in the mind of the speaker and thereby also to simple experiences of real objects in the empirically observed world. This is why the words most open to confusion are those referrig to mixed modes and to complex ideas—these mental constructions often have no “originals in nature” (p. 818). Compounding the indirect or the complete lack of reference in language, there is also the civil use of words, which relies on common definitions that often contradict one another and are applied loosely. Based on all this, Locke sez we can rely on words like “white,” “sweet,” and “bitter,” but not on words like “modesty” and “frugality.” When we encounter the latter, we must insist on specific definitions. So, Locke—like Plato and Weaver—insists on definitions, but can we say that he insists on definitions for the same reason as Plato and Weaver? Do Lockean definitions refer to Platonic ideals? Do they refer to values and emotional investments? Or do they refer to simple ideas (which themselves refer to simple experiences of real events in the world)?