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: 3
Total Posts: 177

Posted 10/10/08 - 10:53 AM:	#31
enkidu wrote: The genius is above all the one with the ability to unite and transcend these opposites into a rejuvenated, forward-looking language. Well put. enkidu wrote: That being said, there are many minor creators, who contribute at a more modest level to the evolution of language. It's not like there is one or two geniuses by generation, and the rest of us occupied either in maintaining obsolete forms or in destroying them. Here I differ in opinion. "Minor creators" are only considered insofar as they are engulfed by the greater. enkidu wrote: There is a kind of minimalist paradigm that is embedded in the chinese approach. Words are not just appearances, but they are only signs, pointers, by being allusive, a language acknowledges this. I can invent words and grammatical structrures to rationalize and convey my feelings and thoughts, but they will remain mine, how do they relate to yours? By merely alluding to them, I may be able to convey something that will be more relevant to you, more instructive, it might not be exactly what I intended to convey, but it might be what you needed to hear. Alluring the senses... I wish I could partake in this as I am fascinated by symbolism in art and literature, but I lack insight when it comes to China, its artists and its traditions. enkidu wrote: From the chinese point of view, the artist is not one who is going to witness some essential truth, and convey it to the populace, but rather somebody who is able to remain so detached from his expression, so subtly uncommitted in what he writes, that his writings are going to gain a universal relevance. But one can find this approach in some modern western artists, such as Rene Char, for instance. Or in anybody inspired by Schopenhauer's aesthetics. enkidu wrote: I am not convinced that objective limitations are a necessity. I acknowledge that they may be helpful, because of the way we structure our thoughts, but I don't believe in the equation that says the more limitations, the better the art is in the end. Some "unstructured" works are among my preferred: Lautreamont, Apollinaire, St-John-Perse, late Rimbaud, Artaud, Caillois, Ponge,... Lautréamont and Apollinaire are examples of writers with an extremely rigid and rule-bound language; they made their own rules. The free-flowing, anarchic air relates to morality and societal norms. They aren't extreme to the extent of Georges Perec -- who wrote an entire novel without the letter "e" -- but they, like Baudelaire and Gautier, are perfectionists.
"There is in the world only the choice between loneliness and vulgarity" (Schopenhauer).

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 10/10/08 - 01:24 PM:	#32
Pandora wrote: It came up in class today that it has been said that philosophy can only really be done in Greek or German because the structure of those languages allows for the invention of words that can attempt to describe those ideas philosophy is concerned with that are so difficult to formulate in words. Especially in translation into English from a language such as German, this seems to be the case. Is English so poorly suited to the study of philosophy that it in fact hinders it? Thoughts? On the contrary, I think that English is better than these two languages. My reason is that English has more words than these two languages; it is very simple a language with more words would absolutely cover a language with less words. English has over one million words already (include scientific words). How many words German and Greek have? The question is if the speaker of this language can handle all these words very will? The average educated people can handle only 20,000 to 50,000 words in these three languages of Greek, German and English. But a Chinese speaker can handle more than two million words. Do you know why?

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 10/10/08 - 01:48 PM:	#33
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Yes. In languages where self-explanatory words are practiced (Ancient Greek, Arabic), concepts are easily created and maintained. A speaker's awareness is heightened, making it possible to alter and restructure expressions in accordance with thought processes. The possibility of experimentation is immense. An English speaker, on the other hand, is used to the opposite: forcing the use of conceptions regardless of their actual definition. Even today's most common political concepts -- "democracy" and "liberty" -- are impossible to summarize or explain without relying on a general consensus. And since each concept is biased by both popular opinion (flawed, inaccurate, misinformed, time-bound) and the discourse among elites (esoteric, overly elaborate), the actual meaning is twisted, blurred and constantly reshaped. Thereby, philosophizing often becomes circular, relative, or -- at its worst -- conservative and absolutist (using obsolete terms; claiming exactitude where there is none). Let me give you an example: Music is a creation of muse (sisterhood of goddesses on Mt. Parnassus) and "-ic" (from τέχνη (tekhne) = art and craft as one). Thus, music -- in English -- means "practiced art of the sisterhood of goddesses on Mt. Parnassus." To the Ancient Greek ear, this name was obvious and clear in itself. However, to the English ear, music is a relative term in need of consensus; its origin isn't just obsolete, it was never in use.... Although, I guess English is useful for nihilists, postmodernists (eclectic argumentation) and for absolutists. Whatever is vast, generic and in movement towards infinity suits it well. Any words can shift into self-explanatory words. For instance, when you need a word ‘ophthalmologist’, if doctor know you don’t understand English very well he may use a word as ‘eye-doctor’. Any body can find the explanation in the dictionary for any words. If he like, he can use the few words in the explanation to form a self-explanatory word and others would understand him very well. The key issue is that why people use synthetic words but not analytic words, self-explaining words or compound words? It is a simple factor of oral action. Here is an example. Rarely someone knows a word ‘prill’ but if I shift it into a self-explaining word as high-grade-copper-ore every body would understand it. They are the same thing, but why people don’t use the compound word? The simple reason is the compound word is too long in pronunciation. The staff of a company may use this word hundred times a day; it will be a waste in time. For this reason, I don’t think Greek and German would be better than English. For they have the same level of both analytic words and synthetic words. My idea is looking for a new language, the words should be as short as normal language but all the vocabulary should be full of self-explaining words, so everybody can learn millions self-explaining words in short time. My slogan is ‘learning less, knowing more’.

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 177

Posted 10/10/08 - 02:28 PM:	#34
Cheng-Zhong Su wrote: The average educated people can handle only 20,000 to 50,000 words in these three languages of Greek, German and English. But a Chinese speaker can handle more than two million words. Do you know why? Tell us. Apart from Enkidu, most of us lack insight when it comes to the symbolistic nature of the Chinese language. As for languages, though, it is not the total sum of words, but the free-ranging mobility of components that matter. The point I have been trying to make with German is that its words can morph into concepts, especially relating to being and existence. E.g. Dasein was created out of da (there) and sein (to be). It marks existence as "with but outside of ourselves"; 'to-be-there(-ness)' or 'over-there-being' doesn't work in English. It stands out as clumsy and unnatural. As such, it becomes an obstacle to the flow of thinking. Another term is Geworfenheit -- 'thrown-into-the-world-ness' -- which creates a sense of dread, loss and limit to our perceptions. As English can't handle these building-blocks, it loses out on the continuity and flow of thoughts. Needing so much preparation, it comes to a halt before the outlook even appears. But it can work -- one can always use the ersatz...
"There is in the world only the choice between loneliness and vulgarity" (Schopenhauer).

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1354

Posted 10/11/08 - 12:42 AM:	#35
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Here I differ in opinion. "Minor creators" are only considered insofar as they are engulfed by the greater. Yes, I agree. My point was to emphasize that the populace's working towards the language is not exclusively destructive, on the contrary, it often provided the raw material the genius will succeed to salvage from oblivion and assert as a component of the modern language. A striking example of this is found in Celine. Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Lautréamont and Apollinaire are examples of writers with an extremely rigid and rule-bound language; they made their own rules. The free-flowing, anarchic air relates to morality and societal norms. They aren't extreme to the extent of Georges Perec -- who wrote an entire novel without the letter "e" -- but they, like Baudelaire and Gautier, are perfectionists. Yes, I agree here too. Making one's own rule is indeed a condition for the artistic creation, but to respect outside rules or not, while it might be an individual choice for the artist, doesn't say anything about the quality of the produced art. As for philosophy, you emphasize the advantage of doing it (in its multifariousness) in an aggregative language. It may indeed add some clarity, but it also has its drawbacks; there is a danger of relying too heavily on the validity of some concepts build by aggregation, an illusion of precision rooted in over-relying on a concept simply on the ground that its representation is grammatically viable. Dasein is an interesting example, is there a mode of being which is not dasein? Existentialism basically concludes that there is not, so what is the point of having two words to designate the same thing, and if one follows Sartre, to conclude that this thing, being, is nothingness? Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Cheng-Zhong Su wrote: The average educated people can handle only 20,000 to 50,000 words in these three languages of Greek, German and English. But a Chinese speaker can handle more than two million words. Do you know why? Tell us. Apart from Enkidu, most of us lack insight when it comes to the symbolistic nature of the Chinese language. Well, my insight certainly has some limit, and while I guess that Cheng-Zhong Su refers to the possibility of combining different characters to construct new words, I very much doubt that anybody human can presently handle 2 million words, and I doubt as well that such a number of words even exist in chinese; I don't know any dictionary which listed 2 million distinct definitions. So I am waiting with everybody else for the clarifications. Edited by enkidu on 10/11/08 - 01:09 AM
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 177

Posted 10/11/08 - 10:14 AM:	#36
enkidu wrote: My point was to emphasize that the populace's working towards the language is not exclusively destructive, on the contrary, it often provided the raw material the genius will succeed to salvage from oblivion and assert as a component of the modern language. A striking example of this is found in Celine. Yes. How about Michel Houellebecq (when it comes to using fragments from the public scene)? enkidu wrote: Making one's own rule is indeed a condition for the artistic creation, but to respect outside rules or not, while it might be an individual choice for the artist, doesn't say anything about the quality of the produced art. Indeed. I came to think of August Schlegel who was extremely bound by conventions. As a poet, he was considered to be mediocre at best, but as a translator -- a genius. Cervantes, Dante, Calderón and Shakespeare were presented to the German crowd. (He even knew Sanskrit and translated the Bhagavad Gita.) enkidu wrote: As for philosophy, you emphasize the advantage of doing it (in its multifariousness) in an aggregative language. It may indeed add some clarity, but it also has its drawbacks; there is a danger of relying too heavily on the validity of some concepts build by aggregation, an illusion of precision rooted in over-relying on a concept simply on the ground that its representation is grammatically viable. Yes, and that is why a mode of expression is in need of constant scrutiny, not to mention continuous dialog within a community of thinkers. enkidu wrote: Dasein is an interesting example, is there a mode of being which is not dasein? Existentialism basically concludes that there is not, so what is the point of having two words to designate the same thing, and if one follows Sartre, to conclude that this thing, being, is nothingness? They don't designate the same thing. Perhaps that is why Sartre's philosophy is considered to be "the most creative misunderstanding to ever take place" with regards to Heidegger's phenomenology. Being -- l'être -- Sein -- can be broken down into many fragments or modes. It includes Dasein (existence as presence; existence at a defined location), but it doesn't equal it. enkidu wrote: I guess that Cheng-Zhong Su refers to the possibility of combining different characters to construct new words, I very much doubt that anybody human can presently handle 2 million words, and I doubt as well that such a number of words even exist in chinese; I don't know any dictionary which listed 2 million distinct definitions. So I am waiting with everybody else for the clarifications. I am equally intrigued by a follow-up. Edited by Dr. Tyko Glas on 10/11/08 - 10:18 AM
"There is in the world only the choice between loneliness and vulgarity" (Schopenhauer).

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 588

Posted 10/14/08 - 10:40 AM:	#37
Isn't the best language for philosophy thought?
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

The Escapist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 503

Posted 10/14/08 - 01:51 PM:	#38
Pandora wrote: It came up in class today that it has been said that philosophy can only really be done in Greek or German because the structure of those languages allows for the invention of words that can attempt to describe those ideas philosophy is concerned with that are so difficult to formulate in words. Especially in translation into English from a language such as German, this seems to be the case. Is English so poorly suited to the study of philosophy that it in fact hinders it? Thoughts? It's complete rubbish. Philosophical thoughts that are hard to formulate in one language are hard to formulate in another. You can invent words in any language as a way of compressing ideas, but the idea is the same however many words you use to express it.

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 10/17/08 - 05:44 AM:	#39
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Tell us. Apart from Enkidu, most of us lack insight when it comes to the symbolistic nature of the Chinese language. As for languages, though, it is not the total sum of words, but the free-ranging mobility of components that matter. The point I have been trying to make with German is that its words can morph into concepts, especially relating to being and existence. E.g. Dasein was created out of da (there) and sein (to be). It marks existence as "with but outside of ourselves"; 'to-be-there(-ness)' or 'over-there-being' doesn't work in English. It stands out as clumsy and unnatural. As such, it becomes an obstacle to the flow of thinking. Another term is Geworfenheit -- 'thrown-into-the-world-ness' -- which creates a sense of dread, loss and limit to our perceptions. As English can't handle these building-blocks, it loses out on the continuity and flow of thoughts. Needing so much preparation, it comes to a halt before the outlook even appears. But it can work -- one can always use the ersatz...

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 10/17/08 - 05:44 AM:	#40
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Tell us. Apart from Enkidu, most of us lack insight when it comes to the symbolistic nature of the Chinese language. As for languages, though, it is not the total sum of words, but the free-ranging mobility of components that matter. The point I have been trying to make with German is that its words can morph into concepts, especially relating to being and existence. E.g. Dasein was created out of da (there) and sein (to be). It marks existence as "with but outside of ourselves"; 'to-be-there(-ness)' or 'over-there-being' doesn't work in English. It stands out as clumsy and unnatural. As such, it becomes an obstacle to the flow of thinking. Another term is Geworfenheit -- 'thrown-into-the-world-ness' -- which creates a sense of dread, loss and limit to our perceptions. As English can't handle these building-blocks, it loses out on the continuity and flow of thoughts. Needing so much preparation, it comes to a halt before the outlook even appears. But it can work -- one can always use the ersatz... 3,000 words can create two words’ compound words as 3,000x3,000=9,000,000 and create three words’ compound words as 3,000x3,000x3,000=27,000,000,000. Here I have to say that every compound word is in fact a self explain word. So once you learnt the 3,000 words you know more than several million words if only they are created by these 3,000 basic words. Leibniz and other semantics worker believed that the vocabulary of every language was in fact from 100 basic words, a certain English dictionary using 5,000 basic words to explain 100,000 words. Suppose using the explaining sentences or words to make compound word, it would be easy job for every body. But my linguistic law believe that the human language is a balance between easy to learn and easy to express. Artificial language such as Esperanto and Ido only thinking about how to make more compound words and derivations, they just don’t think about every compound word should be longer than each word that makes this compound word and longer words means to steal the life time of its speaker. So the only solution is to find more short sounds. Supposing we have not only 26 letters but 2,600 letter, that is to say every words could be very short. The reason is that with 26 letters if our vocabulary need one million symbols the average letter should be 5 letters 26x26x26x26x26>1,000,000. If we have 2,600 letter then every word could be only two letters as 2,600x2,600>1,000,000. It is easy to design more than 2,600 letters but how to distinguish them in pronunciation is a problem. So the most important thing is find out more different sounds. Easy to understand that since a language was born, one of the main targets is to find more different sounds. The entire target is for the brevity of the word. As thinking is a process of speaking in mind, so the short word going through mind means faster thinking speed.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.