Breaking the Linguistic Cave: Francis Bacon and Saussure’s Theory of Value

Introduction: The Linguistic Cave

In the Novum Organum, Francis Bacon describes the Idola Specus—the “Idols of the Cave”—as distortions rooted in the structure of the individual mind (Bacon, 1620/2000). These illusions arise not from the world itself but from the habits through which we perceive it. More than two centuries later, Ferdinand de Saussure invokes this Baconian image when discussing meaning in his Third Course of Lectures. The reference is not superficial. Saussure identifies a comparable distortion at the heart of linguistic consciousness: the belief that linguistic signs contain meanings as intrinsic contents. His theory of value can be read as an attempt to dismantle this illusion and to reveal the systemic nature of la langue.

The Idol of Immediate Meaning

Saussure first presents meaning as the counterpart of the auditory image (Fig. 1).

The arrow linking signifier and signified suggests a direct relation: the sound evokes an idea. In this representation, signification appears self-contained.

Yet he warns that “the value is indeed an element of the sense, but what matters is to avoid taking the sense as anything other than a value” (Saussure, 1910–1911/1993). What appears as a stable content is already shaped by relations within the linguistic system. The mind, however, experiences meaning as immediate and internal. This experiential immediacy constitutes the linguistic version of Bacon’s cave. Saussure writes:

“The paradox - in Baconian terms the trap in the “cave” - is this: the meaning, which appears to us to be the counterpart of the auditory image, is just as much the counterpart of terms coexisting in the language”.

We project onto the sign a solidity it does not possess.

The nomenclature view follows naturally from this illusion. Words seem to label ready-made concepts. Language appears as a list of names attached to things. Saussure’s analysis begins by unsettling that assumption.

The System Behind the Sign

The paradox emerges when Saussure adds that meaning is not only the counterpart of the auditory image but also “the counterpart of terms coexisting in the language.” The second diagram depicts a network of relations among signs (Fig. 2).

Common sense suggests that this network is external to the signifier–signified relation, yet in fact, it determines it. Saussure formulates the difficulty this way:

“At first sight, no relation between the a) and the b) arrows. The value is the counterpart of the coexisting terms. How does that come to be confused with the counterpart of the auditory image?” (Saussure, 1910–1911)

This clarifies a central statement from the Cours de linguistique générale: “In language (la langue) there are only differences” (Saussure, 1916/2011, p. 166). Signifiers are defined through contrasts with other signifiers; concepts are carved out through distinctions from neighboring concepts. Value arises from this relational field.

What appears in Fig. 1 as an internal bond is inseparable from the web shown in Fig. 2. The sign does not connect a sound to a preexisting idea. It correlates two series of differences. Once the systemic dimension becomes visible, the initial impression of intrinsic meaning dissolves.

Difference, Opposition, and the Series of Slots (Fig. 3)

The third diagram presents a series of “slots,” each containing a signifier and a signified (Fig. 3).

Saussure notes how difficult it is to tell apart the link within a slot from associations between slots:

“The relation inside one slot and between slots is very hard to distinguish.” (Saussure, 1910–1911)

 The internal correlation and the external contrasts merge.

This helps illuminate the shift in §4 of the Cours. Taken separately, signifier and signified are negative and differential. When complete signs are compared, however, “there is only opposition” (Saussure, 1916/2011, p. 168). Difference operates within each order; opposition structures the relations between signs.

The positivity of the sign, then, is institutional rather than substantial. A linguistic unit is not a thing but a stabilized correlation within a system of oppositions. Fig. 3 makes visible the inseparability of internal linkage and systemic placement. The cave illusion lies in isolating one slot and forgetting the series.

Against Definitions Based on Words

Saussure’s methodological consequence follows directly: “All definitions based on terms are vain. It is an error of method to proceed from words in order to give definitions of things” (Saussure, 1910–1911/1993). To define a thing by starting from an islolated sign presupposes that the it contains a determinate conceptual core. Yet if value depends on relations among coexisting terms, no unit possesses an autonomous essence.

Meaning shifts when neighboring terms shift. A concept cannot be extracted from the system that constitutes it. Linguistics must therefore begin from the structured whole rather than from isolated lexical items.

Conclusion: Toward a Science Outside the Cave

Saussure’s appeal to Bacon reveals the epistemological ambition of his project. Language produces an illusion of intrinsic meaning because speakers encounter words as self-contained units. Structural analysis shows that what appears immediate is relational through and through. Meaning is value; value is positional; the sign is positive only as an institutional correlation of differences. By exposing this illusion, Saussure attempts to free linguistics from its own cave and to ground it in the systemic reality of la langue.

References

Bacon, F. (2000). The new organon (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1620)

Saussure, F. de. (1993). Third course of lectures on general linguistics (1910–1911): From the notebooks of Émile Constantin (E. Komatsu & G. Wolf, Eds.). Pergamon.

Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1916)