[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein's Lion
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:24:05 +0000 (UTC)
I was trying to make the point along Popperian lines. After all, much has
been written about 'radical interpretation' (so-called), and it may all be a
matter of conjecture and refutation. I.e. we have an addressee (A) and an
utterer (U) and the most the A can do is to make a conjecture as to what
psi (or psychological state) U is having in mind.>
It is right to suggest that Popper would apply a problem-solving 'conjecture
and refutation' schema to ascribing meaning: this is more obvious when meaning
is problematic, but even where meaning is unproblematic it is 'unproblematic'
only because we bring knowledge to bear that was acquired (from childhood on)
by way of a C&R schema.
Against Chomsky, Popper would argue that as children we learn grammar by this
schema rather than because grammar is inbuilt: what is inbuilt is the
disposition to find regularities, but the specific character of grammatical
regularities is not inbuilt. Also "grammar" is a late-stage development in the
evolution of human language and not a hardwired system of which language is a
byproduct.
What Popper would also bring in is Buehler's _Sprachttheorie_: distinguishing
the levels of expression, signalling and description. A lion may express his
own state by way of roar and the lion may signal by roaring but the lion does
not describe - still less argue.
DonalLondon
On Thursday, 11 June 2015, 12:17, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 6/11/2015 4:25:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: "W is typically condensed and oblique in his
language. He doesn't much try to clarify by expansion."
To his loss?
I was trying to make the point along Popperian lines. After all, much has
been written about 'radical interpretation' (so-called), and it may all be a
matter of conjecture and refutation. I.e. we have an addressee (A) and an
utterer (U) and the most the A can do is to make a conjecture as to what
psi (or psychological state) U is having in mind. If we think that a lion and
Witters share a jungle, if not a form of life, a lion's roar MEANS (or
rather, by roaring, the lion means) that, periphrastically, he is advertising
his presence in the vicinity. In evolutionary terms, Witters would rather
learn, and quickly, to 'interpret' this roar -- "I am here". Admittedly,
it's not 'talk', but as Geary tersely puts it -- he speaks English better than
Witters -- 'if 'speak' is to communicate via the production of sounds, the
lion speaks" (Geary is addressing the protasis of Witters's conditional,
following a suggestion about its indeterminacy or counterfactuality pointed
out by Omar K.). But below is Geary's full answer to Witters's text, with
slight expansions.
And thanks to McEvoy for his illustrative answer.
----
PHILO 4
---------------------------- Instructor: "Witters"
-----------------------------J. M. Geary.
QUIZ
i. Wenn ein Löwe sprechen könnte, wir könnten ihn nicht verstehen.
ii. If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.
Why?
Geary:
"I would question (and in fact, I do question) the belief that lions don't
speak.
They certainly give the appearance of speaking to one another.
Their vocabulary might be a bit limited, but they seem to get their ideas
across.
If speak is taken to mean "communicate" through sound, then lions certainly
speak.
They don't speak English so far as I know, but they communicate ideas,
notions, displeasures, desires etc, to one another through the making of
sounds.
I dare say -- just watch me -- that lions even speak TO US humans, or at
least attempt to.
Only those familiar with the language of lions understand when the lion is
saying "I'm bored, I'm
hungry, I'm bored."
But apparently they do use sound to communicate their desires but not many
are willing to learn Lion language."
Notably, a roar (communication via sound, and thus, broadly, 'speaking')
Lions most often roar at night.
The sound, which can be heard from a distance of 8 kilometres, is what
Peirce calls a 'sign', if not an index.
The roar is used to advertise his presence -- this is what the lion MEANS
not just to other lions, but to other animals that may happen to be in the
vicinity. That is thus what another lion (or another animal in the
vicinity) UNDERSTANDS the roaring lion to be meaning.
Why not an index. It _might_ be an index. "Index" is a specific type of
sign for Peirce (the inventor of semiotics, more or less) and he knew what he
was talking about. Although Moore had yet not invented 'entailment',
Peirce's index involves entailment. If a lion roars to advertise his presence,
the lion is present.
While some animals's semiotic behaviour may involve sophisticated degrees
of prevarication (the plover who screams to mean that his nest is near, when
it isn't) the case of the lion's roar is different: he is advertising his
presence and there's no reason he might want to DECEIVE there.
Note that this communication is cross-animal. By Witters using 'talk' (or
'sprechen') and knowing him, he is turning his aphoristic more into a
gnostic utterance. If his point was that utterances need a 'background', there
could be other ways of expressing it. And I will see if I understand the
exegesis WITHOUT relying on 'form of life'. In terms of the conjectures that
are postulated when we try to make sense or understand an utterer's
utterances, Witters's aphorism seems dogmatic and in the wrong way!
To play with variations with the roar:
iii. Witters: That's a lion's roar? What does that mean?
Ramsey: What does HE mean, you mean?
Witters: Whatever.
Ramsey: He is advertising his presence. Have you ever heard,
"Where there is smoke, there is smoked salmon"?
Witters: No.
Ramsey: Well, I dare say (just watch me), where there's a roar, there
is a lion.
Witters: I'm surprised you can understand the lion.
Ramsey: Why wouldn't I?
Witters: Dunno.
Ramsey: Look Witters. This is no game.
The roar is the lion's way to advertise his presence,
so we better get out of here as far as possible.
Witters: But isn't the lion caged at the zoo?
Ramsey: No, we are at the Gir Forest, in Gujarat.
Your idea of a summer escapade.
Cheers,
Speranza
References
Schaller, George B. The Serengeti lion: A study of predator-prey
relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sparks, J. "Allogrooming in primates:a review". In Desmond Morris. Primate
Ethology. Chicago: Aldine.
Leyhausen, Paul. Verhaltensstudien an Katzen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Paul
Parey.
Ananthakrishnan, G.; Eklund, Robert; Peters, Gustav; Mabiza, Evans. "An
acoustic analysis of lion roars. II: Vocal tract characteristics" Speech,
Music and Hearing Quarterly Progress and Status Report TMH-QPSR 51.
Eklund, Robert; Peters, Gustav;; Ananthakrishnan, G; Mabiza, Evans. "An
acoustic analysis of lion roars. I: Data collection and spectrogram and
waveform analyses". Speech, Music and Hearing Quarterly Progress and Status
Report TMH-QPSR 51.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
