[lit-ideas] Re: Linguistic Botany
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 05:29:00 -0400
Linguistic Botany is a specific philosophical technique. It starts by
collecting specimens of expressions in a given field, say: metaphysics, or
epistemology. English philosophers start with English expressions, or Greek and
Latin, and proceed.
In a message dated 4/2/2015 11:31:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
He did not set out to advocate language change, but to make an
epistemological point. That point is that common usage cannot be trusted as an
arbiter
of truth and knowledge. In fact, it is arguable that common usage is not
to be blamed; it was created or evolved for the purpose of facilitating
communication, not of supplying accurate scientific or metaphysical
descriptions. ... At fault are the philosophers who claim that, because we
usually say
such or such, this must of necessity be the case.
not of supplying accurate metaphysical descriptions.
I would say 'ontological' descriptions. What Russell calls 'stone-age
metaphysics' (as incorporated in this ordinary language, or 'common use' that
he
sees as given a cult by philosophers) is best defined as a stone-age
physics, if you like. It may well be the case that the ordinary-language
philosopher who proceeds via linguistic botanizing is a
PRAGMATIST
at heart. What is true is not at stake, but what is useful. And talk of
'things', for example, rather than subatomic particles, is useful and thus
preferable, when engaged in the 'ontological description' that the language
you use commits you with, is a respectable philosophical enterprise.
In another passage Russell calls about the 'silly things silly people say'.
But surely, 'silly' as applied to 'people', is hyperbolic. I hope Russell
felt SILLY at some point in his life. It would be boring otherwise. Plus,
'silly' literally means 'blessed'. When one considers Urmson's
Parentheticals, also, and his analysis of "I believe" in utterances (prefacing
position,
"I believe it's raining", middle position, "It is, I believe, raining", or
final "It's raining, I believe") he is making a philosophical point, and
there is nothing silly about any of these three things that people say. What
a clown say, in a comedy skit, is a silly thing, but hardly the rich
collectabillia which is the product of the philosopher after he has engaged in
some linguistic botanising.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
