The Language of Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Language of Philosophy

Pandora
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/07/08 - 01:03 PM: Subject: The Language of Philosophy	#1
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?

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

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

Posted 10/07/08 - 03:24 PM:	#2
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? 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.
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 10/07/08 - 04:55 PM:	#3
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? Obviously not. One can do philosophy in any language. Not that the language has no influence on the way one philosophizes, but languages are not closed systems, they can be improved, altered in a way so as to carry the meaning one wishes to convey. The structure of a particular language may help to convey better some kind of arguments, but that advantage becomes an inconvenient in other types of argument. And philosophy does not involve only one type of arguments. Besides, no language is perfectly logical, they all rely on some amount of polysemy, on some level of metaphors to convey new concepts. Clearly though, some schools of thought may develop more easily in some language than in others, but clearly too, this relationship is not determinant, as a proof, the most structured philosophy (analytical) developped into arguably one of the most unstructured language (english). So other forces are clearly at work into what determines which school develop in which language. Let's then consider the term "democracy", clearly you can argue indefinitely on its tautological definition if you enjoy pub discussions, but you can do that in greek, or german as easily as in english. If you however prefer philosophical discussion, you should be able to find people honest and knowledgeable enough to agree on a common definition of democracy, as it is understood in the current world, and that focuses on some level of free press, separation of powers, and universal suffrage, and have a constructive discussion about it, in any language you want. Keep in mind though that all discussions ultimately, occurs when a term is not too well-defined. Absolute definition is simply not a feature of natural languages, and greeks were perfectly able to debate over what the logos is, in a rather meaningless way, drinking bad wine. Edited by enkidu on 10/07/08 - 05:02 PM

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 10/07/08 - 05:51 PM:	#4
Words are just symbols for ideas. Those symbols change as cultural attitudes change. The premise that Greek and German are superior for philosophy is really arguing that Greek and German cultural attitudes are more conducive toward philosophy. That isn't a function of language though. Since English borrows so heavily from German and Greek anyway, in order to convey the same meaning, it is pretty much a baseless assumption. If I were to start looking for a preferred language for describing philosophical concepts, I would first throw out languages with a grammatical gender. That already eliminates German and Greek. English is mostly neutral, except for pronouns. Second, I would look for a language that is unambiguous. That eliminates just about every natural language and leaves me with a handful of constructed languages and "Basic English" and "E-Prime". You would have to do the same in German in Greek. I guess that means I'm saying that simpler, not "more conjugations", is better.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

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

Posted 10/07/08 - 06:45 PM:	#5
enkidu wrote: One can do philosophy in any language. Thank you for posing that example. Your first language obviously isn't English. It's French, right? The verb construction "faire + verb" isn't applicable to the English mind. (Out of interest, is it faire la philosophie or faire de la philosophie?) enkidu wrote: The most structured philosophy (analytical) developped into arguably one of the most unstructured language (english). But isn't that a case of "mathematical lingo" rather than English predominance? Aren't words reduced to "operators" in that specific discipline? enkidu wrote: Let's then consider the term "democracy", clearly you can argue indefinitely on its tautological definition if you enjoy pub discussions, but you can do that in greek, or german as easily as in english. I disagree. Only in English is the lack of definition not considered a weakness. enkidu wrote: If you however prefer philosophical discussion, you should be able to find people honest and knowledgeable enough to agree on a common definition of democracy, as it is understood in the current world, and that focuses on some level of free press, separation of powers, and universal suffrage, and have a constructive discussion about it, in any language you want. You are not wrong, but I would deem this as a sign of the circular and "eclectic" argumentation I mentioned previously. The closer you would get to an actual definition, the more unstable and unthinkable it would appear. Soon enough, it'll verge on nothingness.
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 10/07/08 - 07:14 PM:	#6
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Thank you for posing that example. Your first language obviously isn't English. It's French, right? The verb construction "faire + verb" isn't applicable to the English mind. (Out of interest, is it faire la philosophie or faire de la philosophie?) I don't understand your remark, here. My english sentence translates literally in french as: On peut faire de la philosophie en n'importe quelle langue (and that answers your curiosity) I am not using the construction "faire + verbe", which incidentally, in most case (if not all) translates into english directly but with the verb "to make" and not "to do". Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: But isn't that a case of "mathematical lingo" rather than English predominance? Aren't words reduced to "operators" in that specific discipline? It certainly was the ambition of the creators of the discipline, but this one has not been achieved, and many think it is unachievable. Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: I disagree. Only in English is the lack of definition not considered a weakness. 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). 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. You seem to think that there is a threshold beyond which this richness of language becomes an invonvenient to do philosophy. I think it's a very conservative position, languages evolve with and along philosophy, different linguistic structures and cultures give birth to different philosophies. 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? Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: You are not wrong, but I would deem this as a sign of the circular and "eclectic" argumentation I mentioned, previously. The closer you would get to an actual definition, the more unstable and unthinkable it would appear. Soon enough, it'll verge on nothingness. I don't understand your point here.

makerowner
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 127

Posted 10/07/08 - 07:25 PM:	#7
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. No, that's just silly. Where do the words for 'mousa' and 'technê' come from? All languages are based on arbitrary relations, Greek and German included. And your etymology is wrong in any case. It's from mousikê<mousikos<mousa [EDIT: Also, "do philosophy" sounds perfectly fine to me (and yes, I am a native speaker), and it gets >90 000 ghits.] Edited by makerowner on 10/07/08 - 07:30 PM
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 10/07/08 - 07:45 PM:	#8
swstephe wrote: The premise that Greek and German are superior for philosophy is really arguing that Greek and German cultural attitudes are more conducive toward philosophy. That isn't a function of language though. It is a function for the written language, not for the spoken -- and as such, German and Ancient Greek are more conducive to higher standards of philosophy and literature. swstephe wrote: Since English borrows so heavily from German and Greek anyway, in order to convey the same meaning, it is pretty much a baseless assumption. English is indeed very eclectic. You will see the use of smörgåsbord, Ersatz and/or Zeitgeist in popular culture, but it is used sloppily and only based on consensus, never on origin. Such a mode halts experimentation. swstephe wrote: If I were to start looking for a preferred language for describing philosophical concepts, I would first throw out languages with a grammatical gender. That already eliminates German and Greek. English is mostly neutral, except for pronouns. Second, I would look for a language that is unambiguous. That eliminates just about every natural language and leaves me with a handful of constructed languages and "Basic English" and "E-Prime". You would have to do the same in German in Greek. I guess that means I'm saying that simpler, not "more conjugations", is better. There is a language like that -- Swedish (my first language). Its rotting corpse is maintained in a museum up north, and occasionally one will sense a death rattle as it is jump-started via government intervention. Apart from 19th century poetry, the simplistic Swedish language hasn't produced a single thought of interest since the occult writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It is a brand of inferior German, adapted for icy ripples, shadows and nocturnal gloom. Even its greatest writer (August Strindberg) hated it to extreme lengths, eventually giving it up for French. I'm digressing, but my point is that simplified modes of expression kill the element of philosophy in one's thinking -- and on a wide scale (culturally), it is devastating.
«Юмор есть остроумие глубокого чувства» (Ф. М. Достоевский).

Dr. Tyko Glas
Aesthetic irrationalist

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

Posted 10/07/08 - 08:06 PM:	#9
makerowner wrote: All languages are based on arbitrary relations No. Arbitrary relations are a recurring factor in languages, not vice versa. makerowner wrote: And your etymology is wrong in any case. I was exemplifying the origin of a term vis-à-vis its consensus, not conducting scientific research. makerowner wrote: Also, "do philosophy" sounds perfectly fine to me (and yes, I am a native speaker), and it gets >90 000 ghits. Finding incorrect or lazy expressions -- with even more Google hits -- wouldn't make me happier. It's merely a display of widespread illiteracy among English speakers, nothing else.
«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 - 08:10 PM:	#10
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Finding incorrect or lazy expressions -- with even more Google hits -- wouldn't make me happier. It's merely a display of widespread illiteracy among English speakers, nothing else. Rubbish. English is the language that's spoken by english speakers. "Do philosophy" is fine.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.