Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…
The Purpose of Philosophy
Included in Wittgenstein’s list of nonsense, as well as the logic of language, is any talk about ethics, aesthetics, religion and mathematics. In fact, all philosophical reflection is meaningless.
Mathematics?
As for the others, my own frame of mind here revolves around the assumption that in a No God world meaning is existential. In other words, given our day to day social, political and economic interactions meaning is everywhere. Much of it we share objectively. On the other hand, pertaining to ethics, aesthetics and religion “failures to communicate” are as well often everywhere.
Exactly. While an argument might be made that all reflection is philosophically meaningless, once you bring that…“down to Earth”?
Look around the globe. Meaning up the wazoo, right?
Again, however, says who? And given what particular set of circumstances? Me? I tend to make what I construe to be a crucial distinction between what things mean to us “in our heads” and what we are then able to demonstrate that, in fact, all reasonable men and women are obligated to share that meaning.
Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus.
In reading the Tractatus, we are not being presented with arguments which attempt to establish a conclusion, for to do so would rely on the subject matter being the kind of thing that can be talked about meaningfully.
That’s basically my point as well. There can be a precise relationship between words and worlds when the words describe and encompass a world derived from the laws of nature. Words that are “naturally” true for everyone.
Though even in regard to conflicting goods and moral conflagrations there are any number of things that can be accepted as in fact true for everyone involved.
They then just reach a point where in reacting to particular words in the is/ought world they reach what can become radically different moral philosophies.
On the other hand, science continues to clarify any number of material interactions. How else to explain extraordinary engineering feats and, well, this technology in and of itself. Where’s the philosophical equivalent of that pertaining to ethics and political science?
As for the “boundaries of sense”, tell that to the objectivists here. Their own senses have come to conclude that their own boundaries “necessarily” devolve into One True Path.
Philosophy and Language
Do Languages Exist? And how does language work anyway? Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.
Languages seem an important feature of our lives. The languages we speak determine who we can communicate with, where we can work, and what we can read or listen to.
Here however, in my view, the distinction between language used in the either/or world and language used in the is/ought world is still basically the same. Yes, we might be at a loss to understand what those who speak an entirely different language are saying. But there are those able to translate it into their own language. And the translation either denotes objective truths or it doesn’t. Same with those in specialized fields who have their own technical jargon. Those outside the field may be overwhelmed trying to figure out what is being conveyed. But again, there are others able to grasp it and then reconfigure it into an assessment more effable.
The politics of human interaction. In other words, the extent to which the “rules of behavior” – rewards and punishments – in any given community revolve around particular combinations of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law. Also, the reality of political economy and class.
Then this part…how deep do you want to go in order to untangle this given our day to day social, political and economic interactions, given in turn the multitude of variables involved. Or, perhaps, more important still, how deep are you able to go given The Gap, Rummy’s Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The BBS in particular here. Why? Because so much embedded in human interactions is often beyond our either fully understanding or fully controlling.
As for Chomsky, there’s the part where he is known for his “work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism”. In other words, the part where some might enthusiastically agree with him in regard to linguistics and the acquisition of language, but fiercely oppose his radical left-wing politics.
"A language is, according to Chomsky, a state obtained by a specific mental computational system that develops naturally and whose exact parameters are set by the linguistic environment that the individual is exposed to as a child. " IEP
Indoctrination out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. Precipitating, in other words, all manner of “failure to communicate”.
Philosophy and Language
Do Languages Exist?And how does language work anyway?
Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.
Three initial challenges seem to undermine the common sense view that languages such as English actually exist.
The first challenge: Much of our modern understanding of the world has come about through natural sciences such as physics and biology. These sciences aim to give an account of the natural world based on observation and experiment. Given the success of natural science, several thinkers, including Chomsky, suggest that linguistics – the study of language – should proceed according to its methods. Thus, linguistics should examine the natural world and the place of linguistic phenomena within it.
Language and philosophy? Linguistics? Linguistics is said to be “the scientific study of language”.
Now all we need are actual social, political and economic contexts. In other words, in order to explore “for all practical purposes” the part where we connect the dots between words and worlds given our day to day interactions. What can we encompass linguistically such that there are very, very few failures to communicate, as opposed to those contexts in which failures to communicate are often more or less the rule…and going all the way back to, well, the very beginning of the human species itself.
So, what important point am I missing here? The common sense view I construe regarding the English language revolves around the historical reality that, for all practical purposes, encompasses its invention and its use and its evolution over the centuries. The vocal chords? The brain? Clearly they are crucial biological components embedded in the use of any language. But the words still have to convey something about the world that is intelligible to others who speak the same language. Then for those of my ilk that crucial distinction between the use of language in the either/or world and its use in the is/ought world.
Now, this may well encompass a point that I am simply unable to wrap my head around “here and now”. But for those of us who use the English language existentially, it will always come down to the words we choose [given free will] and the extent to which others either agree or disagree with the assessment we chose to describe things with.
In other words, the extent to which we can close the gap between what we believe about something “in our heads” and what we are able to demonstrate [empirically, experientially, experimentally] such that all other reasonable men and women concur.
Do Languages Exist?And how does language work anyway?
Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.
The Idiolectal View
Given these challenges to the common sense view, some folks believe that the phenomenon of human language is best understood not as a series of languages like English or Welsh, but as a series of idiolects.An idiolect is the language of one individual. A description of one person’s idiolect includes all the vocabulary and grammatical features of that individual’s personal way of speaking (or writing). Their idiolect is an independent, self-contained system. So Bob’s use of “I don’t know nothing” is simply a feature of Bob’s idiolect. It is not ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ according to any external standard.
Now we’re talking. Once you do get down to the language of any particular individual, the more my own assessment of dasein kicks in. Meaning, in other words, a distinction is made between language that is applicable to all of us essentially, objectively, universally [like the laws of nature and mathematics] and language that conveys only our own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political and spiritual prejudices.
Bob “doesn’t know nothing” about what? What particular set of circumstances? And, as those circumstances are described, there are things he will say that we can all agree on objectively and things that might precipitate all manner of objections instead. In other words, conflicting goods and political economy.
Yes, but only if the distinction I make above is recognized in regard to the limitations of language. Given, in other words, ever evolving historical and cultural contexts and individual lives that can be widely – wildly – distinct.
Again, however, in regard to these descriptions, what happens when we do encounter conflicting goods? For example, noting the manner in which the world around us is described politically on Fox News and on MSNBC. Thus the “linguistics” here will often be anything but “continuous with natural sciences like biology”.
Rules, Language & Reality
George Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
Two of the perennial questions in 20th century analytic philosophy have been “How we are able to say or mean anything with signs, symbols, and sounds?” and “What exactly is the meaning of those signs, symbols, and sounds?”
Well, it seems how we are able to do this revolves largely around the fact that biologically we come into the world able to do it. All the rest – click – would seem to pertain to the parts we still do not grasp regarding how matter itself [God or No God] was able to evolve over billions of years into living, biological, conscious and then self-conscious matter.
As for what exactly the meaning of the words we use convey, that’s not nearly as important [to me] as the extent to which we are either more or less able to demonstrate that all other men and women are obligated to share in that meaning.
Existentially.
More to the point, it seems, why out in the world interacting with others socially, politically and economically, would philosophers not be focused on language and meaning? Note for example how often they are examined and explored here. In and out of the clouds.
Me, for instance. Here, however, what intrigues me most about language is how those who share the same language [in the same dictionaries] still manage to accumulate so many “failures to communicate”. And, in particular, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.
Rules, Language & Reality
George Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
The importance of Immanuel Kant for later philosophy can’t be over-emphasized. One of his legacies was philosophy’s focus on the relationship between the mind and the world; that is, the connection between subjective consciousness and the objective world outside of consciousness.
But is this or is not this done only in assuming it is being done [at least in part] by minds capable of thinking and feeling autonomously. Otherwise, the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world” is just one more domino nature topples over on cue.
Only this assumption itself may well be just one more domino.
I’m all for exploring this relationship myself. Click, of course. But I suggest there is a crucial distinction to be made here between “I” in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world. The laws of nature, mathematics, and the empirical world around us doesn’t change just because we acquire language. There are things we invented words for and there is the extent to which these words either do or do not result in or precipitate failures to communicate.
How about this…
Given a particular historical and cultural context in today’s world, one in which the relationship between words and worlds is often shifting as a result of any number of on-going social, political and economic changes, and given our own unique accumulation of personal experiences, how would we go about minimizing those failures to communicate?
Has anyone here arrived at this conclusion? If so, what on Earth does it mean for all practical purposes, given a moral and political conflagration of particular interest to them?
Rules, Language & Reality
George Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
The part where magazines like Philosophy Now provide forums in which to explore an assessment of human language analytically…didactically. But it’s the part where they intertwine their philosophical assessment of words given specific social, political and economic interactions that is of most interest to me. Words that for all practical purposes either sustain confluence or conflict.
Same thing, in my view. Down through the ages. Investigating language analytically but then taking whatever conclusions you come to scholastically and investigating further how your own understanding of particular words put in particular orders is either accepted or rejected by others.
See what I mean? Here there are words and concepts that either encompass reality objectively for all of us in the either/or world – tables, flowers, pain – or precipitate endless failures to communicate when the tables, flowers and pain are embedded in one or another assessment of conflicting goods.
As for expressing feelings, asking questions, giving commands, telling jokes, telling stories, singing songs, etc., it’s not like there aren’t any number of contexts in which fierce conflicts might unfold over which feelings, questions, command, jokes, stories and songs are or are not appropriate within any actual community. Conflicts both within communities and between communities.
I find it humorous whenever people say of someone who rejected Christianity that they held onto Christian ethics, as if the one communicating this… didn’t. Because whenever people say stuff, they are unwittingly following the golden rule, which is the sum of Christian ethics. It is in every culture because culture would not exist without it. To say/communicate anything is to follow it… is to acknowledge the ability of another person to understand what you are communicating… is to communicate with them in a way they can understand… just as you would have them do to you.
Not necessarily. Speech acts are utterances that do something rather than merely conveying information. When we speak we are not just saying words we are performing actions with those words. These actions can include a wide range of social functions like requesting, apologizing, promising, ordering or expressing emotions.
Violent communication, also known as life-disconnected, or life-alienating communication, involves using language that harms, manipulates or coerces others. Speech acts are linked to violent communication inasmuch as they can be the very mechanism through which such harm is inflicted.
Violent communication includes insults, put downs, and labels, demands with threats or, denial of responsibility, and blocking compassion. Regardless of whether violent communication is verbal or nonverbal it can escalate pain for everyone involved.
So speech acts provided a framework for analyzing how language can be used not just to convey information but also to perform actions that have significant social consequences. When these actions are employed to harm manipulate or coerce others they become acts of violent communication that disrupt healthy relationships, and hinder compassion in contrast with the golden rule.
Yes, necessarily. That’s what’s ironic. You can’t break the golden rule with a consent-violating speech act without following the golden rule to speak a common language that both/all understand (this is concrete mutual consent recognition).
So if we imagine two people cursing at each other, who each understand that the other person is expressing hostility, would they, in your view, be practicing the golden rule?
Only if they like talking to each other like that (people are weird), or they are doing so to (say) protect the life of another person.
If an outsider observes this behavior without knowing that they like talking to each other like that, they can quickly diffuse the situation by informing the outside observer that is just how they speak to each other and they’re just going to have to get used to it.
Perhaps the outsider can negotiate with them and say… OK as long as you guys enjoy the conversation between each other and it isn’t hurting either one of you, I’m OK with it, but could you please respect my presence as a witness, and not say disrespectful things about X, Y, or Z while I am here?
Rules, Language & Reality
George Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
For me “here and now”, it’s not what each of us as individuals think we can do with language so much as the extent to which we can demonstrate that what we do think here about it, others are obligated to think as well.
Signs, symbols and sounds are everywhere. And if all of us concurred regarding what they mean, failures to communicate would plummet. Yet here we are many, many centuries after the invention of philosophy and the limitations of language basically remain the same. Some things we can all agree on while other things are ever and always embedded in conflicting goods derived from any number of equally conflicting moral philosophies.
Really, how many of us get into arguments regarding what it means to have a pet cat? Sure, some will insist certain breeds of cats make the best pets…or they’ll debate how best to feed them or breed them. While others insist it’s not for nothing that dogs are often referred to as our “best friends”.
Then the part where particular countries in Asia and Africa and South America consume cats for dinner.
Just out of curiosity, in regard to conflicting value judgments, how might his early work be more or less applicable than his later works?
What particular shortcomings pertaining to what particular human interactions? And how do his later works encompass human relationships more…realistically?
Rules, Language & RealityGeorge Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
Words and worlds. We use particular words in order to both grasp the world around us and to convey what we conclude from that to others.
First, of course, the language used must be one that is communicated to all those who speak it in turn. Travel to countries that speak entirely different languages and you can find yourself struggling to comprehend what is going on. On the other hand, you can learn to speak that language. And, at the very least, you have access to translators and translations.
Instead, my focus here revolves around normative language. Why my rules of behavior and not yours. Why ours and not theirs?
That’s the part [if I grasp it correctly] where my own understanding of language becomes intertwined in the manner in which I understand the meaning of dasein given human interactions that revolve around conflicting value judgments and [especially] conflicting goods.
As for “exegetical matters”, how does this not revolve around the fact that out in the is/ought world interpretation is often everything. One person’s explanation regarding the morality of abortion may be another person’s bullshit. Or another person’s gibberish.
Now all we need is a context in which to explore this more substantively.
Rules, Language & RealityGeorge Wrisley considers how some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas on language relate to reality.
This comparison makes sense given the fact that within any given community rules of behavior abound. They are everywhere. And they generally revolve around one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise
On the other hand, for some, it all starts to crumble in acknowledging there are only 32 total pieces in a chess game while the “game of life” for human beings involves countless variables…variables that we may well never be fully aware of. Let alone fully control. After all where is the equivalent of the Benjamin Button Syndrome in a chess match?
Well, from the perspective of those of my ilk, grammatical rules are among the least of all the culprits precipitating “failures to communicate”. And the most effective linguistic rules are those in which the words we choose to describe or encompass the world around us are then able to be backed up with solid evidence.
Same thing, in my view. It is often pointed out that in chess the Shannon number – Shannon number - Wikipedia – is simply mind boggling:
“…there are a staggering number of possible moves and games in chess, far exceeding millions. The number is so vast that it is nearly impossible to calculate precisely. The possibilities grow exponentially with each turn, leading to an astronomical number of potential positions and game variations.”
On the other hand, try even to imagine what the Shannon number would be in regard to human interactions!
So, in the background, the rules we embody in sustaining our own interactions with others revolve around what seems to be, well, you tell me. The rules of grammar pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? The part where we can all concur regarding any number of objective truths, and the parts where communication has never stopped going bust in regard to conflicting value judgments.