The Philosophy of Language and It's Importance

Sam26

Before I write some of my thoughts, I would like to get feedback from those of you who have a solid philosophical background, or who have a solid science background. The reason I ask this, is that I would like to keep the discussion on a higher level of discourse. This is not to say that others shouldn't or can't respond, but to recognize that those who have been studying philosophy for many years, generally have a greater understanding of some of the ideas that follow.

As many of you know I've spent a lot of time studying philosophy of language, in particular, Wittgenstein's writings. One of the reasons I've spent so much time studying philosophy of language, is, obviously, that language is the medium in which philosophical discourse takes place. It seems to follow, that having a good understanding of the way language works, in terms of concepts and meaning, is crucial to having a clear understanding of not only philosophy, but other subjects as well. It also seems self-evident that clarity, and the ability to get a consensus about what we write, stems from how well we understand language in terms of the concepts we use, how meaning is derived from the concepts, and our ability to express our thoughts in writing.

This subject is very complicated, but I'm interested in a wide array of thinking across this domain of thought. It's not so much about debating the topic, although that always happens, but how philosophy of language has influenced the way you think about philosophy, if at all.

I guess much of this thread will about what you've learned about the topic over the years, and has it helped your thinking.

Marchesk

One of the reasons I've spent so much time studying philosophy of language, is, obviously, that language is the medium in which philosophical discourse takes place. It seems to follow, that having a good understanding of the way language works, in terms of concepts and meaning, is crucial to having a clear understanding of not only philosophy, but other subjects as well. — Sam26

Sure, but I'm skeptical that analyzing language is some sort of cure for philosophical problems in general. That may be the case in some instances, but I'm of the opinion that the majority of philosophical problems are not primarily linguistic in nature.

By example, consider health problems. We use language to discuss health, but health issues are biological and social, and not primarily a matter of language usage (although it can be sometimes in certain situations).

Sam26

Sure, but I'm skeptical that analyzing language is some sort of cure for philosophical problems in general. — Marchesk

You won't get much disagreement from me on this, but I do believe many problems are clarified or dissolved, many more than people realize. The question is, which or what philosophical problems are we talking about.

Marchesk

The question is, which or what philosophical problems are we talking about. — Sam26

Would be interesting to try and divide them up:

1. Philosophical problems dissolved.

2. Clarified.

3. Potential to be clarified or dissolved.

4. Resistant.

Or what have you. Of course the problem here is people won't necessarily agree on what constitutes dissolving or clarifying a problem, and which ones are resistant. Even coming up with a framework for classification will be controversial.

That reminds me of David Chalmers book on scrutability where he attempts to give a framework for metaphysics given whatever basic premises one wants to start off with.

Dfpolis

↪Sam26

I seems to me that the role of philosophy is provide a consistent framework for understanding our experience of reality. Occasionally, we misstate what we experience or what we think about our experience, so understanding language can be useful, but it does not get at the central issue of forming a conceptual, and not a linguistic, framework.

Perhaps the fixation on language is an outcome of the 14th c turn away from moderate realism to nominalism.

Pseudonym

'm of the opinion that the majority of philosophical problems are not primarily linguistic in nature. — Marchesk

If you can describe a philosophical problem and then define each word you just used in a way that will gain even a substantial minority of agreement then I'd be prepared to concede this. Thus far, I've not found such a thing to be possible. In health problems one can resort to pointing at the condition (or a photograph of it) and observing the remedy. There's no such resort with philosophy, hence it is entirely wrapped up in the understanding of language.

Pseudonym

I would like to get feedback from those of you who have a solid philosophical background, or who have a solid science background. The reason I ask this, is that I would like to keep the discussion on a higher level of discourse. — Sam26

Just hoping I haven’t joined in without proper qualification. Presuming you yourself intend to take part in this 'higher level of discourse' perhaps you could let us know what level of qualification you are so that we know the target we're aiming for?

Dfpolis

There's no such resort with philosophy, hence it is entirely wrapped up in the understanding of language. — Pseudonym

OK, let's take an old saw as an example: Free Will. Of course compatibilists will say that we simply do not understand what it is to be free, but really, that's not the issue. To see this we can avoid the word "free" altogether. The position I take is that at a decision point many, mutually incompatible, lines of action are equally possible. A determinist will say that only one line of action is actually possible. We each understand our terms in the same way. So, language is not the issue.

Baden

Language doesn't always do what it says on the tin, but you can't live on can-openers either.

Pseudonym

↪Dfpolis

OK, so if you actually want to do this. Define 'decision' without begging the question. Define a 'line of action' without assuming cause and effect. Define what it means for something to be 'possible' without presuming either determinism, or some arbitrary constraints.

We each understand our terms in the same way. — Dfpolis

I don't think they do. I don't think we even agree what it is to 'understand' a thing.

Marchesk

If you can describe a philosophical problem and then define each word you just used in a way that will gain even a substantial minority of agreement then I'd be prepared to concede this. Thus far, I've not found such a thing to be possible — Pseudonym

That sounds like no amount of linguistic analysis will fix the problem since people won't agree on what the terms mean.

But I don't think this is actually the case for every problem in professional philosophy, just discussion forums where the rules of engagement are a lot more lax, and people can play loose and fast with terms to try and win the argument.

If you look at the debate over qualia, the different sides mostly agree on terms, they just don't agree on the issue as to whether qualia present a hard problem. And thus it's not a linguistic issue.

The dispute between Dennett and Chalmers, for example, is not a matter of language, since they both understand each other and use the same terms. They're not having a semantic dispute over how to use the word consciousness or qualia, rather they're having a substantive dispute.

Streetlight

All philosophical problems are linguistic in nature - to understand the problems is to understand the language; but the nature of language is itself not lingusitic: it belongs to a wider set of practices and capacities which must also be grasped in their specificity. So I don't see 'philosophy of language' as an autonomous discipline: to understand 'the philosophy of language' is to have to understand a great deal more than language.

Marchesk

to understand 'the philosophy of language' is to have to understand a great deal more than language. — StreetlightX

Such as culture, sociology, cognition, politics, even biology, depending on the nature of the problem.

Streetlight

↪Marchesk

:up:

fdrake

↪Marchesk

I can think of a few problem sets which don't seem to be fundamentally reliant on the analysis of language to be addressed:

Philosophy of time: presentism, block universes etc.
Metaphysics of science: emergence, character of natural law
Political philosophy: the vast majority of issues in it. 'Are Marx's classes of proletariat and bourgeoise still present in capital? Have they changed over time?'
Logic: foundations of mathematics (eg, we used to think set theory was the only way to axiomatise things, now we have topos theory!), properties of formal systems.
Meta-ethics: cognitivism, non-cognitivism (Frege-Geach for a specific debate)
Ethics: real world ethical issues - environmental conservation, overpopulation, morality of torture, relationship of ethics and legal systems.
Philosophy of language/linguistics: performativity and speech act theory, pragmatics vs formalism.
Epistemology: epistemic dependence

It seems to me that the analysis of most problems doesn't turn on the analysis of language. To be sure, being a careful reader and writer is useful for understanding and contributing.

Pseudonym

But I don't think this is actually the case for every problem in professional philosophy — Marchesk

Is that just wishful thinking, or do you have some reason to think this? If you could provide an example of some philosophical terms whose meaning you think is widely agreed on (with a rough idea of what that agreed meaning is), that might help.

Marchesk

Is that just wishful thinking, or do you have some reason to think this? If you could provide an example of some philosophical terms whose meaning you think is widely agreed on (with a rough idea of what that agreed meaning is), that might help. — Pseudonym

I updated my post to include qualia, with the ongoing dispute between Chalmers and Dennett as a specific example.

Qualia is understood to be the essence of subjective experience. This isn't a matter of dispute. It's what the term means. Whether qualia exist, and if so, how they can be accounted for, is open for dispute. The term itself isn't in dispute.

Dfpolis

Define 'decision' without begging the question — Pseudonym

A decision is a commitment to a course of action based on a consideration of alternate courses of action. A determinist would say that before this process begins, the commitment is predetermined. I would deny that. There is no question begging on either side.

Define a 'line of action' without assuming cause and effect. — Pseudonym

There is no need for me to avoid assuming that effects follow from adequate causes to maintain my position, nor is the determinist required to do so. However, I am happy to comply with your request: A "line of action" is a continuous sequence of events.

Define what it means for something to be 'possible' without presuming either determinism, or some arbitrary constraints. — Pseudonym

To be possible means that the contrary is not necessary.

I don't think we even agree what it is to 'understand' a thing. — Pseudonym

I will be happy to consider your definition and tell you whether I find it acceptable or not.

Dfpolis

All philosophical problems are linguistic in nature — StreetlightX

This is precisely the point I am disputing with Pseudonym

Marchesk

Philosophy of time: presentism, block universes etc. — fdrake

Agreed, and this could be resolved by physics at some point.

Metaphysics of science: emergence, character of natural law — fdrake

Right, and this is regarding the nature of the world, not language.

Political philosophy: the vast majority of issues in it. — fdrake

Yep, obviously political differences can't simply be resolved by analyzing political language. There are issues people disagree on, and some of them are ideological in nature. Some of them relate to a kind of philosophical outlook on how society should function.

Logic: foundations of mathematics — fdrake

Certainly outside ordinary language analysis.

Ethics: real world ethical issues — fdrake

Yes, ethics relates to how we should live. That's not a matter for linguistics.

Dfpolis

It seems to me that the analysis of most problems don't turn on the analysis of language. — fdrake

Agreed.

fdrake

↪Dfpolis

If we have the addendum that philosophy mostly consists in the creation/discovery and analysis of concepts, then I think we see eye to eye.

You think about stuff, then you make stuff to help you think about stuff, or you discover some structure in stuff. Sometimes you make stuff to help you think about stuff and then that helps you discover a structure in stuff. Philosophy is the study of how stuff hangs together.

Edit: this contains the silly idea that philosophy is done by individuals rather than being a product of a relation between individuals and history mediated by individuals and history mediated by...

Dfpolis

If you could provide an example of some philosophical terms whose meaning you think is widely agreed on (with a rough idea of what that agreed meaning is), that might help. — Pseudonym

This is not a central issue. Of course, equivocation has been a recognized problem since the ancient Greeks. However, most open minded people are not wed to specific definitions and are willing to use those of a dialog partner to facilitate communication. The real problem is that even when we agree to use terms in the same way, we may still have very different visions of the nature of reality. Thus, linguistic differences are a side issue, like clearing weeds before starting a building project.

Dfpolis

Philosophy is the study of how stuff hangs together. — fdrake

Well, that is close to what I said about building a consistent framework for understanding our experience of reality -- however, I see "our experience of reality" as an essential note.

Sam26

↪Marchesk

Ya, it would be interesting to divide the problems up into various kinds.

fdrake

↪Dfpolis

Talking about that goes even further away from poor @Sam26's thread topic. Which, I imagine, is supposed to be a series of vaguely Wittgenstein influenced confessions of how the analysis of language has changed how we think about philosophical issues. Emphasis on the specifics, like 'How reading Wittgenstein made me an anti-theist' or 'How reading Austin turned me off Chomsky's approach to language'.

Pseudonym

↪Marchesk

And you're sure what an 'essence' is? Have you read no debates on the meaning of 'subjective?

Marchesk

And you're sure what an 'essence' is? Have you read no debates on the meaning of 'subjective? — Pseudonym

Essence was just my word for the nature of subjectivity. It's not a word typically used in the debate.

So tell me how linguistic analysis can help if nobody agrees on the meaning of the terms?

Marchesk

Ya, it would be interesting to divide the problems up into various kinds. — Sam26

Would also be interesting to see what sort of agreement/disagreement we got on the classification of different problems.

Sam26

Just hoping I haven’t joined in without proper qualification. Presuming you yourself intend to take part in this 'higher level of discourse' perhaps you could let us know what level of qualification you are so that we know the target we're aiming for? — Pseudonym

I'm looking for people who have given significant thought to the issues, but I don't want to keep people out of the discussion. I say this to give some guidelines for what I'm looking for. There is something to be said for studying these ideas at length and coming to a conclusion, but sometimes even then one wonders about the quality of the thoughts or conclusions.

Pseudonym

A decision is a commitment to a course of action based on a consideration of alternate courses of action. — Dfpolis

You've just replaced 'decision' with 'commitment', how do the two terms differ in this context?

A "line of action" is a continuous sequence of events. — Dfpolis

I'm really not going to carry on like this, but can you define an event? Where does one event end and the next one start. This is important because if you can define a single event then you can't say that existence is not one single event which undermines the argument against determinism somewhat.

To be possible means that the contrary is not necessary. — Dfpolis

More definition by symonym (or antonym in this case). What is it for a thing to be necessary? Necessary for what?

The Philosophy of Language and It's Importance

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions