[lit-ideas] Re: Must the Word be Literate?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:38:21 +0100 (BST)
--- John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps, again. But there is no denying that modern philosophers
> ranging from Leibniz to the early Wittenstein took quite seriously the
> notion that an ideal language could be constructed in which all and
> only true statements about the world could be uttered. Historically
> speaking, this effort seems rooted in quite common earlier beliefs
> about primordial words that when uttered by deity, priest or magician
> shape or reshape the world.
First, is the idea of an "ideal language" one that we should now take
seriously (notwithstanding that it may have been an idea worth exploring,
once)?
Second, is the idea of an "ideal language" really "rooted in quite common
earlier beliefs about primordial words": was it not, in Wittgenstein's case
anyway, rooted in the idea that there must be a logically perfect language
that could be developed or spelt out by philosophical analysis and in terms
of which we could then set a bar to measure our ordinary, natural language
against, and so engage in a process of philosophical clarification? If the
notion of an "ideal language" is rooted in "earlier beliefs about primordial
words", where do those "earlier beliefs" pursue the idea of an "ideal
language" in the Leibniz or Wittgenstein sense? That natural language can
"shape and reshape the world" can be accepted along with accepting that
natural language falls short of a logically perfect "ideal language". The
link between an "ideal language" and language that can "shape and reshape the
world" seems to me too vague to amount to more than an tenuous link, given
that a highly imperfect and far from "ideal language" can also "shape and
reshape the world" - and indeed "historically" has done for a long time
before and after Leibniz and Wittgenstein.
From Popper's viewpoint there is, however, a link between the philosophical
obsession with 'meaning-analysis' and "still deeper roots: to animism"
[RATAOS, p.264]. And perhaps this is what you are getting at.
In a footnote Popper writes:-
"The animistic belief in the _power of words_ - in word magic - is, I
conjecture, involved in the very process by which the child learns to speak;
a process which is linked with his experience of controlling his environment
by pre-linguistic noises. I think that this belief is involved in what we
mean when we speak of the 'meaning of words'; which is perhaps one reason why
some people feel that meaning-analysis is important."
That is, the power of words - and their 'magic' - is something we discover as
children after having already perhaps discovered the 'magical' powers of our
physical actions (including making "pre-linguistic noises" - as well as
throwing our toys out of the pram [and seeing them miraculously return]) in
affecting and controlling our environment.
The rest of the fn. is perhaps also worth quoting:-
"An acknowledgment is due to Freud for his deep understanding of animism and
its belief in the 'omnipotence of thoughts', symbols, and words. Yet Freud
never suspected the animistic basis of his own essentialist approach.....in
one of his last papers...he speaks of the problem of getting 'nearer to the
_nature_ or..._essence_of the mental...........Perhaps the most interesting
point...is Freud's realization that a physicist would _not_ ask 'what is the
nature of electricity?'........[H]e suggests that", though psychology is also
a science, "'the case is different' because 'everyone behaves as..an amateur
psychologist', and because every amateur psychologist believes in
essences....[H]e comes pretty close (but not quite close enough) to saying
that essentialism is a pre-scientific attitude, and thus to uncovering its
magical and animistic roots."
A Cardinal has openly said that Catholicism is an animistic religion; and
that animism is a philosophy or attitude that underpins 'rites' 'religions'
etc. can hardly be denied.
But it may not be that that the belief in an "ideal language" is rooted in
earlier beliefs in 'rites' etc. anymore than the belief in the power of words
generally is, where those words may also be part of - and usually are part of
- a far from logically perfect or "ideal language". What may be true is that
an animistic belief in the power of words, which seems confirmed as part of
our childhood and later experiences, may underpin the belief in the utility,
validity, sancity etc. of 'rites' at one end, and of the utility and validity
of 'meaning-analysis' at another end of the animistic spectrum.
Thus, from Popper's point of view, the earlier Wittgenstein in his search for
a logically perfect language and assertion of a perfect isomorphism between
the structure of language and reality, is presenting a kind of 'essentialism'
- even though it is a kind of 'essentialism' that in its nominalist and
positivist bent is opposed to, and sees itself as profoundly different to,
"Platonic idealism". In effect, in TLP Wittgenstein asserts that language
connects with the world because they both share the same essential structure
- an essentialist claim.
Popper is much more radically anti-essentialist. Imagine a scientist trying
to explain how immaterial forces can interact with matter by saying it is
because they share the same essential structure: clearly an 'essentialist'
claim. Popper's point is that a scientist would not offer this kind of
essentialist explanation which does not really explain anything fundamental
anyway - for even if we accepted the explanation it would just raise the
question why only entities that share the same essential structure can
interact or inter-relate; and there is no strong reason to accept the
assertion of structural isomorphism unless this can be demonstrated (in TLP
Wittgenstein did not so much demonstrate such an isomorphism as assume it and
then work out a philosophical system given that assumption).
So on your question..ehhh...
Donal
Subsiding from an attack of ism-ism
To bed with a glass of something
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
