Language I
We are all philosophers. At some point in our lives we have asked the deepest questions it is possible for a human being to ask. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is the meaning of life? Does time have an end? What is right action? What does it mean to be free? How should I act toward others? What is the meaning of death?
Since recorded history philosophers and religious teachers of all cultures have debated these questions. Some cultures have offered answers based on religion or mystical revelation. Others have created complex overarching systems of thought. Some philosophers answer these questions with yet other questions. Others seek closure and completeness and wish to create a single philosophical approach that will encompass all questions and all answers.
Some religious and philosophical systems deal in poetic images as they seek to express the transcendent. Others, particularly in the West, espouse the goals of clarity and directness. On the other hand some philosophical writings become dense and convoluted as philosophers attempt to express the ineffable in words, and force language into tasks for which it is not normally adapted.
And thus we arrive at another great question: How is it possible to say something that means something? How do we make sense of the world when we speak about it? How can we communicate the essence of what we feel and think about the world? How can we speak in ways that are not misunderstood? What is the correct way to use language?
It is possible to argue that a rational and “ideal” language should only be used in philosophical arguments. Undergraduate discussions about “free will,” “consciousness,” “morality,” and so on rapidly become bogged down in confusion over definitions. “I’m talking about one thing and you’re really discussing another,” we say. “Let’s start by defining our terms. Let’s all agree on what we’re talking about.” Thus the argument moves in a new direction, in trying to define free will, or awareness, or what we mean by “goodness.” Yet as soon as we all agree on such a definition it seems to slip through our fingers, for we sense that we are really beginning to talk about something subtly different.
Ii is possible to understand that these pitfalls only too well. then it can be proposed that philosophers should adopt a language in which all terms are first properly defined and free from ambiguity. If we all agree on what is meant by “freedom,” “morality,” “causality,” “time,” “space,” and so on, and we are careful only to use those terms in the way we have defined them, then we can talk together and our discussions will proceed logically, step-by-step. In this way we will arrive at a degree of certainty and freedom from ambiguity and confusion.
This program sounds ideal. Once such a language has been perfected philosophical arguments can be cleared up and, step-by-step, the great questions of philosophy resolved and answered. In this way philosophy will arrive at a general agreement of what it knows and what remains unanswered. In place of the various philosophical schools we will have total clarity. Philosophy will have placed a fence or boundary around what can be said, what can be known, and what we can say for certain. Outside this boundary will remain all the unanswered questions and degrees of uncertainty. But within the boundary the ground will be clean and free from weeds.
To be continued.....
We are all philosophers. At some point in our lives we have asked the deepest questions it is possible for a human being to ask. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is the meaning of life? Does time have an end? What is right action? What does it mean to be free? How should I act toward others? What is the meaning of death?
Since recorded history philosophers and religious teachers of all cultures have debated these questions. Some cultures have offered answers based on religion or mystical revelation. Others have created complex overarching systems of thought. Some philosophers answer these questions with yet other questions. Others seek closure and completeness and wish to create a single philosophical approach that will encompass all questions and all answers.
Some religious and philosophical systems deal in poetic images as they seek to express the transcendent. Others, particularly in the West, espouse the goals of clarity and directness. On the other hand some philosophical writings become dense and convoluted as philosophers attempt to express the ineffable in words, and force language into tasks for which it is not normally adapted.
And thus we arrive at another great question: How is it possible to say something that means something? How do we make sense of the world when we speak about it? How can we communicate the essence of what we feel and think about the world? How can we speak in ways that are not misunderstood? What is the correct way to use language?
It is possible to argue that a rational and “ideal” language should only be used in philosophical arguments. Undergraduate discussions about “free will,” “consciousness,” “morality,” and so on rapidly become bogged down in confusion over definitions. “I’m talking about one thing and you’re really discussing another,” we say. “Let’s start by defining our terms. Let’s all agree on what we’re talking about.” Thus the argument moves in a new direction, in trying to define free will, or awareness, or what we mean by “goodness.” Yet as soon as we all agree on such a definition it seems to slip through our fingers, for we sense that we are really beginning to talk about something subtly different.
Ii is possible to understand that these pitfalls only too well. then it can be proposed that philosophers should adopt a language in which all terms are first properly defined and free from ambiguity. If we all agree on what is meant by “freedom,” “morality,” “causality,” “time,” “space,” and so on, and we are careful only to use those terms in the way we have defined them, then we can talk together and our discussions will proceed logically, step-by-step. In this way we will arrive at a degree of certainty and freedom from ambiguity and confusion.
This program sounds ideal. Once such a language has been perfected philosophical arguments can be cleared up and, step-by-step, the great questions of philosophy resolved and answered. In this way philosophy will arrive at a general agreement of what it knows and what remains unanswered. In place of the various philosophical schools we will have total clarity. Philosophy will have placed a fence or boundary around what can be said, what can be known, and what we can say for certain. Outside this boundary will remain all the unanswered questions and degrees of uncertainty. But within the boundary the ground will be clean and free from weeds.
To be continued.....
Last edited:
