The Language of Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » The Language of Philosophy » The Language of Philosophy

The Language of Philosophy

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Language of Philosophy

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 147

Posted 10/07/08 - 08:23 PM:	#11
ughaibu wrote: Rubbish. English is the language that's spoken by english speakers. "Do philosophy" is fine. Well, Sherlock, you will find that "I done it" gets over 550,000 Google hits, but I guess that's just another "mode of expression" for you commoners in the Anglo-American rabble?
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

ughaibu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 221

Posted 10/07/08 - 08:33 PM:	#12
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: you commoners Who the hell are you? By your own admission you're not a native speaker of english. I tell you how my language is spoken.

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 147

Posted 10/07/08 - 08:40 PM:	#13
ughaibu wrote: Who the hell are you? By your own admission you're not a native speaker of english. So? English is just a treadmill, a bridge for universal communication. In itself, it's useless beyond the entertainment industry and the industrial-military complex. ughaibu wrote: I tell you how my language is spoken. Such stupidity is quite common. You should know that it is first when you frequently speak other languages that you really test your capacity for thought. A language is never "yours."
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

ughaibu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 221

Posted 10/07/08 - 08:48 PM:	#14
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: You should know that it is first when you frequently speak other languages that you really test your capacity for thought. Here's an example of an artificial sentence that would not be produced by a native speaker. Good luck with developing your capacity for thought.

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 147

Posted 10/07/08 - 09:14 PM:	#15
enkidu wrote: As you noticed I am not educated in english, and I believe that it is critical for the existence of philosophy to take place in a natural language open to polysemy (and all languages are). Yes, but each language applies its polysemy differently. The French faire isn't universal, although it would be quite useful if it were. enkidu wrote: Philosophy is not a science, it is the source of sciences, specialised linguo can develop in sociology, psychology, linguistics, whenever they are possible and deemed necessary, but the openess, the non-scientificality of philosophy should be preserved. The lack of univocal definition is paramount to the survival of philosophy. Yes. I see philosophy at the nexus between the various fields, but the "specialized lingo" you mention quickly becomes an esoteric factor, not a communicative one. enkidu wrote: You seem to think that there is a threshold beyond which this richness of language becomes an invonvenient to do philosophy. There is. You create a language barrier when you use "do philosophy" as I then don't know if you mean "philosophize," "study philosophy," "apply philosophy," etc. Language presents an anarchic jungle in need of autocratic enforcements. enkidu wrote: Languages evolve with and along philosophy, different linguistic structures and cultures give birth to different philosophies. Sounds interesting. Name one. enkidu wrote: If you think english is unstructured, what will you say about chinese? Have chinese been unable to develop thought that can, at least in an historical (and extensive) sense, be seen as a philosophy? We would need the assistance of an expert sinologist in order to answer that question.
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 10/08/08 - 12:32 AM:	#16
...philosophy can only really be done in Greek or German Your first language obviously isn't English. It's French, right? So? English is just a treadmill, a bridge for universal communication. In itself, it's useless beyond the entertainment industry and the industrial-military complex. It's a little known fact that Bertrand Russell wrote his major works in a mixture of Greek and German. Principia Mathematica (a German expression that can be roughly translated into French as "Plato's Republic") contains encoded instructions for building the first atomic bomb. That's the power of language. You think this is a stupid fiction? Sorry. I don't do stupid and I don't do fiction. But I do do philosophy.

makerowner
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 125

Posted 10/08/08 - 07:00 AM:	#17
Well I think it's obvious that this discussion is going to go nowhere. Have fun feeling superior.
The grounding-attunement of the first beginning is deep wonder that beings are, that man himself is extant, extant in that which he is not.

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 147

Posted 10/08/08 - 07:00 AM:	#18
Cuthbert wrote: It's a little known fact that Bertrand Russell wrote his major works in a mixture of Greek and German. Thank you for pointing that out. Your comment shows that Russell primarily used English as a communicative bridge. That is the query made by the initial poster: English being inferior to Ancient Greek and German. That is what I am debating. The "power of language" is not at issue here. Sophisticated insults may be displayed in Semaphore, Morse code or Braille, but -- as with English -- they will never form the firmament needed for philosophical outlooks (beyond mathematical tautologies).
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1253

Posted 10/08/08 - 06:02 PM:	#19
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Yes, but each language applies its polysemy differently. The French faire isn't universal, although it would be quite useful if it were. Yes, clearly, each language has its own polysemy. As for "faire", I am not sure what you mean by "universal", but if anything, "faire" has more synonymous in french and therefore more rightful use than "to do" has in english, you can easily verify that by doing a semantic analysis on this site: http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/en/index.html Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Yes. I see philosophy at the nexus between the various fields, but the "specialized lingo" you mention quickly becomes an esoteric factor, not a communicative one. I think generalization is unfair here. The "specialised linguo" does not aim to be an esoteric factor(though sometimes it contributes to some isolation), its first intent is to communicate something in a concise manner. And this "specialised linguo" becomes necessary to the progress of the discipline. Besides, it never becomes firmly esoteric, there is an abuse of language here, an effort may be needed to comprehend it, but this effort is always perfectly possible. Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: There is. You create a language barrier when you use "do philosophy" as I then don't know if you mean "philosophize," "study philosophy," "apply philosophy," etc. Language presents an anarchic jungle in need of autocratic enforcements. By "doing philosophy", I mean all of these, my use just indicates to you that I reject a clear-cut distinction between all these activities, and assert that these distinctions are specious. As for the autocratic enforcements, I will extend your metaphor. I consider the activity of philosophizing( not that you can philosophize without studying or applying philosophy, but here I wish to isolate the semantic dimension of philophizing) as being more acquainted with the one of an explorator in the jungle of words, that takes time to account for the existing interactions between the various ecological systems, than the one of a real estate entrepreneur who is going to pull down the whole jungle to impose a geometric order of concrete and asphalt. Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Sounds interesting. Name one. Chinese philosophy is the obvious example. And there is an example particularly relevant to our discussion about the language of philosohy here. In his work, Zhuang Zi tells us: "Of my sentences nine in ten are metaphorical" (http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=2957&if=en), that clearly indicates how distinct is the intended meaning and the spoken (or written words) are. Chinese language is structurally very allusive (for instance the Zhuang Zi sentence in chinese 寓言十九, literally translates as "contain speech ten nine", and chinese philosophy reflects this character by emphasizing the importance of allusions both in philosophy and in art. But even more important for Zhuang Zi is the last style that goes beyond the mere metaphor and extends to the infinity: "Words like the water that daily issues from the cup, and are harmonised by the Heavenly Element (of our nature), may be carried on into the region of the unlimited, and employed to the end of our years" That is not to say that the structure of language was conducive of such a philosophy, but rather that they developped jointly along other influencing factors (such as the political and social climate). My point here is really to oppose a static understanding of languages, they are evolving objects, there is not an absolute correctness for speaking a language, they defined themselves extensively by their usage. If a philospher or a writer is dissatisfied with his own language, he can always alter it and improve it, in the way Shakespeare did with english. I don't see a language as an absolutely limitating factor, since it is in their very nature to transcend themselves. Edited by enkidu on 10/09/08 - 12:15 AM

larryn
SuperChomsky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 76

Posted 10/09/08 - 01:58 PM:	#20
I'd like to add a few points: - English is a Germanic language, so I don't see how English is somehow incapable of translating philosophical texts from German. - Greek and German? Why not mention French philosophers? Or the Indian philosophies written in Sanskrit? Or perhaps Chinese historical philosophy? - Language IS ambiguous; a word is just a set of phonemes that has no limitation on its meaning. Words do not have some inherent meaning..."Cat" in one language can mean "Butt" in another. Meanings also shift as the words are used. This is why it is hard to translate some concepts like "Democracy" from its Greek origin. Even Greek translators will be flawed in their interpretation of this term into English (or anything), because none of us were there to understand its true implications in context. - The whole point of borrowing from other languages is to have terms for newly introduced concepts. Every field of study has terms that are created by one language and then borrowed by another. There will always be a few things lost in translation, but philosophical concepts are formed in many languages. And think a lot of philosophical ideas are broad enough to be accurately translated. Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Well, Sherlock, you will find that "I done it" gets over 550,000 Google hits, but I guess that's just another "mode of expression" for you commoners in the Anglo-American rabble? Language is constantly evolving. To say that there is one "correct' form of English is to employ prescriptive grammar. Real linguists care more about descriptive grammar, or what is actually being used by the speakers. As long as there is a wide range of people saying "I done it" in their vernacular, along with the listeners understanding of what is meant, then it counts just as much as 'proper' English.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.