Ordinary Philosophy of Language and the Philosophical Method
“Our misapprehension of the nature of language has occasioned a greater waste of time, and effort, and genius, than all other mistakes and delusions with which humanity has been afflicted. It has retarded immeasurably our physical knowledge of every kind, and vitiated what it could not retard.”[1] The stakes are incredibly high with language. It is an area of philosophy that I believe is often taken for granted in contemporary philosophy. The limits of language presents a problem with all forms of human discourse and inquiry. Locke says “Words are sensible signs, necessary for communication of ideas. Man, though he have great variety of thoughts, and such from which others as well as himself might receive profit and delight; yet they are all within his own breast, invisible and hidden from others, not can of themselves be made to appear.” This I believe sets up the foundations for the problems that are presented with contemporary philosophy of language. If we were to accept Locke’s model, as many philosophers do, sharing meaning or truly being able to understand one another becomes a mounting task. However, is this really the case with non-philosophers in everyday existence? I will be examining the quote from Dr. Powell, “Words are not a perfect representation of my thoughts.” The goal here is not to get lost in the ambiguity of definitions. I will be examining the ‘philosophical method’, and if the problem presented by Locke is truly as momentous as it appears when not bringing up any loaded examples that have philosophically rooted concepts like, justice, good, evil, virtue, piety, etc. Are we philosophers, like Powell says, merely going into a cave with a flashlight that has a silhouette of a bat and pointing it at a wall deep inside the cave and saying, “Look there is a bat, a.k.a. a philosophical problem?” The idea here, is that if we examine a sentence that is not stacked in a philosophers favor, we might find that there is no problem present. If this turns out to be the case, then I believe I can use this as an attack against Locke. In this examination I will also be calling into question the philosophical method.
The idea of getting to a perfect definition has been one of the troubling tasks of philosophy. Starting with the ancient Greeks. The problem of definitions is riddled throughout the works of Plato. Most notably in “The Euthyphro” and “Meno’s Paradox.” In Euthyphro it isn’t quite as obvious that definitions are the core issues. It appears as a problem in Ethics. Euthyphro makes many mistakes by taking the bait from Socrates. He states that definition piety comes from what is approved by all the gods. So Socrates asks the question in the nature of, “Do the gods call something pious because it is pious? Or is it approved by the gods and that makes it pious?” The danger in this scenario is the ancient Greek gods do not get along, and they often quarrel with one another. Euthyphro ties justice and the good into piety. Socrates continues to lead him around and round in circles, until, like in all dialogues of Socrates, the person that is being pursued gives up. What makes this uneasy for the reader is that if we do not subscribe to the divine, then it is up to the individual to deem what is good or what is just, and unable to give the ‘correct’ definition. This leads us to the uncomfortable place that we ourselves might not even be able to tell when something is good or just in itself.
The problem that is presented in Meno’s paradox is more apparent: it is about the usefulness of definitions. In “The Meno”, Meno makes the mistake of trying to explain what virtue is to Socrates. Meno states “...And the child has another virtue--one for the female and one for the male; and there is another for the elderly men--one, if you like, for the freemen, and yet another for slaves.”[2] Socrates was obviously not happy with this answer. It allows everyone to have their own conception of what virtue actually is, which in turn can mean no one really knows. However, this may not be as apparent when not talking about complex philosophical concepts.
Examining the sentence and the meaning of “Words are not a perfect representation of my thoughts.” This seems deceivingly simple. When I ask a non-philosopher a.k.a. my mom, if they believe they understand this sentence, they do. I believe that she knows, the question comes up: should we turn this into a philosophical problem? The problematic words in this sentence are ‘perfect’ and ‘thoughts’. Mainly due to the fact that they are rooted in concepts, what this means is that there is no point in the world where I can point to as a referential point for explanation. The idea of a thought is particularly problematic, as illuminated by Wittgenstein in the “Beetle in the Box” thought experiment. I have thoughts, so I make the assumption that every other living being has them in a similar fashion. I can have a conversation with other individuals about thoughts, and use them in sentences without any apparent problems. Despite the inability to ever examine how or what they are like for other individuals. This is where the philosophical method can get messy, I better stop now.
Perfection, oddly enough, seems simpler to understand. Yet I think we still run into the same problem that was presented in Euthyphro. Which is to say what makes something perfect? Is is perfect so I call it perfect? Or is it more of a commercial decision. Both forms are equally as dangerous. It has the upperhand in the sense that I can point to something in the world and call it perfect, perhaps a piece of art. However, perfection is rooted in opinion which opens it up to philosophers calling it into question. I think I need to come up with a sentence that is stacked against philosophy.
I was talking with my roommate and said, “Hey Wade, open the window.” Now Wade leans over and opens up the window. There is nothing obviously wrong here. We both believe that we have successfully communicated and completed the task at hand. The issue, I believe that arises here, is that under Locke’s model on language and the way it works, is there should be a problem here. If we truly are using dead symbols, marks, sounds, etc to convey these hidden and invisible thoughts, perfect communication should be impossible. Apply the ‘philosophical method’ to this sentence sounds silly to most people, and probably many philosophers. I would be creating a problem where one doesn’t inherently exist, and there isn’t a blatant issue to be solved.
The need to make an issue out of this sentence stems from analytic philosophy. Philosophers long for certainty, and this has led many attempts to break everything down so we can find the foundations that they rest on. In terms of language, we can look at the example stated above, we complete the task on an ordinary level. There is no problem that is immediately presented. However, when trying to argue with the philosophical method, there will always be the skeptic that we desire to defeat. The skeptic that we want to hide from, but cannot, would ask something along the lines of “How do you know he understands what you mean?” Meaning is something that under Locke’s model is impossible to convey, or at the very least know that you have succeeded in sharing. This is why philosophers want to break things down to the most fundamental level. Looking at the sentence, there are no concepts that someone like Socrates could dance around making the philosophical problem obvious. However, in the example of Wade and the window, there is no obvious problem like in the instance with virtue or piety. I believe, there is a necessity to create a problem in the end. In the sense that philosophers need to find the basis on which language rests on. It’s essential to take the simplest things and start there. Which is what Wittgenstein attempted to do in his book “Tractatus Philosophicus.”
In the first part of the tractatus Wittgenstein set out asking two questions; What is the function of language? and What is the structure of language? He was convinced that elementary propositions must be the basis of our language structure, and the link between the world and propositions. “Wittingstein assumes that if we can use language to talk about the world there must be some propositions directly connected with the world, so that their truth or falsity are not determined by other propositions but by the world: these he called ‘elementary propositions.’”[3] Elementary propositions are the foundations, and non elementary propositions are built upon the elementary ones is how Wittgenstein attempts to set up his structure. Elementary propositions, according to Wittgenstein, are based on atomic facts that can no longer be questioned. The problem with the idea is that he was never able to give an example of what an elementary proposition is.This is Wittgenstein's attempt at setting up a structure for how language must work. We can understand each other in certain scenarios, like me asking Wade to open up the window. Even though Wittgenstein was never able to give an example of what an elementary proposition is, I believe this is a good example of the ‘philosophical method’ in showing the importance of this mindset. This also shows the importance of questioning simple things like Wade and the window sentence. The answer, according to analytic philosophy, must be at the foundations. At first glance, it doesn’t seem to have much value creating philosophical problems where they don’t inherently exist in such cases as ordinary philosophy of language. However, are we actually making progress in doing these tasks? Some philosophers and intellectuals definitely disagree.
I did an experiment in terms of trying to define religion. I went to the sociology, philosophy, and religious studies department at Humboldt State University and asked professors to define religion for me. I wanted to see how the variations in definitions of concepts were being approached from the different disciplines and if it presented a big issue. Dr. Silvaggio in the Sociology department gave me the three definitions from Marx, Weber, and Durkheim as the definitions that he brings up in his class. He didn’t seem too concerned with the inability to get at a decisive definition, leading to the purpose of definitions merely being able to understand the common thread of the meaning. Sarah Hart in the Religious Department first gave me the etymology of the term. Then she gave me her personal definition of religion she said, “I really like to understand religion as a mechanism of cosmic implacement how we understand ourselves in the cosmos, the tool.” She had a similar attitude as Dr. Silvaggio in the sense that getting to the perfect definition wasn’t something they were too interested in solving. It presents difficulties, but they didn’t take the socratic bait in the sense of being unable to give the indisputable definition that didn't equate to not knowing the concept. She said there is a reason why she switched from being a philosophy major to a religious studies one. Dr. Bockover is invested in philosophy of religion and understands the issue of trying to define religion. She said defining and understanding religion is something she has been working on for some time. She brought up Radhakrishnan’s statement being “philosophy of religion is religion coming to an understanding of itself.” She saw the importance of trying to get to more of a concrete definition of religion and the problem that it can present. Richard Rorty is a philosopher who attacks analytic philosophy and it’s sense of progress. The need for analytic philosophers to provide an epistemic foundation and to break things into categories he feels, is what separates us from the rest of the community. He states that, “Since the time of Kant, it has become more and more apparent to non philosophers that a really professional philosopher can supply a philosophical foundation for just about anything. This is one reason why philosophers have, in the course of our century, become increasingly isolated from the rest of the culture. Our proposals to guarantee this and clarify that have come to strike our fellow intellectuals as merely comic.”[4] I feel the need to agree with Rorty. I also see his view as dangerous, the problems presented in philosophy of language is something that will continue to cause problems all across the disciplines, whether people realize it or not. As Wittgenstein says, "the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language."[5]
[1] Alexander Bryan Johnson: A Treatise on Language
[2] The Meno, pg2
[3] Wittgenstein’s Conception of Philosophy, K.T. Fann, pg 8
[4] Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism
[5] http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/