Language - they key to everything
- Apex_Predator
- Posts: 61
- Joined: August 16th, 2016, 10:56 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius
Language - they key to everything
The one thing that gets in the way time and time again of productive discussions in philosophy is misunderstanding and a lot of that misunderstanding I see due to different levels of understanding different word meanings. Language can be very confusing with words meaning different things when people don’t utilize them understanding there are different meanings. So while someone may use a word in a proper sense, they may not necessarily understand that there are different senses of that same word that can have an entirely different meaning, and both be logically correct in the context of the discussion. When that occurs, it is imperative the author differentiate to avoid confusion. On the other hand, there are instances of a word being conveyed that really only has one sense that it must have logically been referred to, otherwise in context the author doesn’t make sense. This burden, rests upon the reader in order to understand. While it can be nice for the author to mention the definition, that can get tedious.
This can lead us to a slippery slope of defining (state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.) every (used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception.
used before an amount to indicate something happening at specified intervals. (used for emphasis) all possible; the utmost.)) word ( a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.) we state.
Philosophy requires in depth thinking and master of language in order to comprehend it due to the nature of philosophy that by nature, attempts to have us arrive to the deepest level of understanding that we can. Those who know the senses of words and have mastered the senses of words will understand that there are rules to play by, rules to communicate effectively and rules to understand information to communicate effectively. I have presented two of those reasons above, I hope the readers take the time to take that to heart so that they do understand. However taking it to heart is not merely enough. Understanding language is a matter of intelligence – in that it can be very difficult if you do not process information quickly. There are over a million words in the English language. Most adults use 20,000 – 35,000 words. Each one of those words typically has multiple senses in of itself. Remember, a word is just a symbol for the larger meaning of it, which definitions only hope to convey the meaning accurately. It can be very difficult to communicate effectively but in Philosophy is extremely important.
Meaning comes from within the conveyors mind, it is a construct of a person’s understanding of not only the concept a word is referring to but also the known definitions that people utilize to communicate. As such, there are problems found in both ways of providing meaning, not necessarily understanding the concept and not understanding the definition. Things can make sense in a person’s mind but don’t to others, usually due to a failure here in these two areas. Aside from that, even if both of these are gotten right, people don’t always think logically. As such, this isn’t a problem of communication if solely this occurs, but a problem of thinking in ones mind.
Words don’t mean things, people do
“Meaning” – as defined by Merriam Webster
1.
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import:
the three meanings of a word.
2.
the end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
3.
Linguistics.
the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression.
Now sense #1 is used colloquially when referring to “the meaning of words” or “what does that word mean?” But when I state, “Words don’t mean things, people do” I am referring to sense #3. Now this is somewhat ironic in how meaning of words and meaning of people and language can get very confusing and or muddled; words and communication are dynamic, in that there are many ways words can be used metaphorically, aside from all the different senses of a words. I would contest in certain words, it is nothing short of brilliant in able to utilize these certain words “in every sense of the word” and to mean every sense of the word. By stating “words don’t mean things, people do” as in people mean things – I am in a way, can be seen as being ambiguous or dubious in my communication. The receiver of the communication could easily not understand what I am stating – it could be that they don’t know about sense #3, which is often the case when I bring this statement up to say, Joe Schmoe. They might response, “words mean things, I can look up the meaning of words in the dictionary!”. But that would be Joe Schmoe using sense #1 strictly – in a sense that “meaning” is synonymous with having a definition. I don’t like the definition of sense #1 myself, it can create problems for our frame of reference on understanding what meaning I would say, should be. It is more meaningful to utilize meaning in sense #3, I would contend.
There are reasons why that is, a stating “words have definitions” is very straight forward as opposed to “words have meanings”. What does it really mean that “words have meanings”. It’s a rabbit hole in so much as it can mean quite a bit, and quite a bit more than one should be inundated with during communication. There are problems in language, because language is only a means to an end. That mean is conveying symbols (spoken or written) in a manner that hope to express the meaning of the communicator.
“Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.” – Leary
This quote ties in that language, definitions, are constructed through and form a supposed ontology of how the world is, but this is done through other humans, popular usage so to speak. But that doesn’t mean it is right even, nor does it mean a words implications are actually real. I will leave it there to let some minds run wild, hopefully.
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: Language - they key to everything
This paragraph forces me, a reader, to use only one, albeit hyphenated, word: Ay-vey.Apex_Predator wrote: This can lead us to a slippery slope of defining (state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.) every (used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception.
used before an amount to indicate something happening at specified intervals. (used for emphasis) all possible; the utmost.)) word ( a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.) we state.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
- Apex_Predator
- Posts: 61
- Joined: August 16th, 2016, 10:56 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius
Re: Language - they key to everything
Well I was trying to make a pointRenee wrote:This paragraph forces me, a reader, to use only one, albeit hyphenated, word: Ay-vey.Apex_Predator wrote: This can lead us to a slippery slope of defining (state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.) every (used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception.
used before an amount to indicate something happening at specified intervals. (used for emphasis) all possible; the utmost.)) word ( a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.) we state.
-- Updated October 20th, 2016, 2:47 pm to add the following --
I think that would be new age hoodoo voodoo hocus pocus philosophy yes?Burning ghost wrote:For me philosophy is precisely that aspect of language that is untouched by the scientific field of "linguistics".
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: Language - they key to everything
I tend to think that all concepts and thoughts can be verbalized. If verbalization can't be done, it's not due to the shortcomings of the language but of the speaker-writer. No offence meant.Burning ghost wrote:If you wish to dismiss what cannot be verbalised as such then that is your choice of words not mine.
-- Updated October 21st, 2016, 2:37 am to add the following --
"Words, words, words." -- Hamlet.
What I like about the language is its precision. What I don't like is when people, by their sloppy choice of expressions, dilute the precision. It is a wonderful tool for humans, we should cherish it and nourish it, and yet some of us abuse it. "It" being language, of course.
I don't mean instances that change the language. Language is an evolving thing, adapting to changes and sometimes the changes are still valid, despite serving on apparent goals in its stricter meaning. For instance, in the sixties we used to say "cool it, man", now we say, "chill, dude". They are equivalent, and not a bastardization. It is a change brought about by fashion, by a need to be different from how we were in older times. But if one says "people are using language differently anymore" that hurts me like sticks and bones.
-- Updated October 21st, 2016, 2:41 am to add the following --
Language is based on consensus. It is wonderful how we all have reached an agreement, due to our cultural upbringing, in what sting of phonemes or letters mean what. And the fact that the "what" that the words individually mean are similar from person to person, is a proof that no man is an island: we are all equipped with the same hardware configuration in our brains, and with the same conceptual ideation in our minds, that supports language. Both syntactic and semantic aspects of it.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
If you think philosophy is only linguistics then study linguistics.
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: March 15th, 2012, 2:10 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
- Apex_Predator
- Posts: 61
- Joined: August 16th, 2016, 10:56 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius
Re: Language - they key to everything
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
I do think for the most part a concern and investigation into "language" is required for the philosopher. Afterall the medium through which we communicate our ideas is through "language".
In the field of linguistics the meaning of "language" is taken in a much more flexible light. It is perfectly fine for a linguist to talk about "bee language", yet in common parse people don't regard this as a "true language". In neurosciences there are a number of aspects that make up what we call common language and some of these aspects are present in other species too.
I can think about the taste of a banana ... what is truly amazing is that I can talk about this thought and you know what it tastes like too. One thing that interests me is what happens here in a cybernetic sense? Sometimes I need to think "banana" to recall the taste and sometimes I do not. Also when I actually eat a banana I don't need to think about it as a banana. There are some very subtle cybernetic processes going on here within conscious attention and in a purely physiological sense.
- Apex_Predator
- Posts: 61
- Joined: August 16th, 2016, 10:56 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Marcus Aurelius
Re: Language - they key to everything
It depends on the text, but a full blown philologist? No, I don't see where that is needed. That's for the translators. After all, most philosophy is not originally in English up until this century.Burning ghost wrote:Do good philosophers need to be philologers too? I love of knowledge does essentially require a good appreciation and interest in words and meaning.
I do think for the most part a concern and investigation into "language" is required for the philosopher. Afterall the medium through which we communicate our ideas is through "language".
In the field of linguistics the meaning of "language" is taken in a much more flexible light. It is perfectly fine for a linguist to talk about "bee language", yet in common parse people don't regard this as a "true language". In neurosciences there are a number of aspects that make up what we call common language and some of these aspects are present in other species too.
I can think about the taste of a banana ... what is truly amazing is that I can talk about this thought and you know what it tastes like too. One thing that interests me is what happens here in a cybernetic sense? Sometimes I need to think "banana" to recall the taste and sometimes I do not. Also when I actually eat a banana I don't need to think about it as a banana. There are some very subtle cybernetic processes going on here within conscious attention and in a purely physiological sense.
- Eureka1099
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: October 27th, 2016, 11:58 am
Re: Language - they key to everything
Gamnot wrote:Language is the only instrument that philosophy has, therefore language is all important in doing philosophy. Language is to philosophy as the telescope is to astronomy and the microscope is to biology. ...... Francis Bacon used the phrase "idols of the marketplace" to show the importance of language in communications between people. The sharper the language and logical tightness the better the philosophy that is possible.
On the whole, I concur with Gamnot. Imprecise language complicates philosophical discussions. Of course, vagueness thwarts any kind of discussion. However, philosophical discussions are particularly susceptible because the speaker tends to assume that the listener is able to perceive the connotations of their (the speaker's) terms. That is, the speaker assumes empathy. By empathy, I mean the second definition as detailed by Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of empathy
1) the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2) the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also:the capacity for this.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023