It's time to revisit the topic of language! First I will define what a language is and describe how it is used in conjunction with logic. A language is a system of oral and written communication that is used in a somewhat homogenous manner, and logic is the set of laws that shows what things are and what follows and doesn't follow from a given thing. Together, of course, they are used in effective communication--not that any communication between humans is perfect, though, as a person can only have access to his or her own mind and thus can only know what he or she means by a word in a certain case. Human languages, even so, work well enough for people to get by when they are used consistently.
Linguistic systems devised by humans are arbitrary, but one can still use them with internal consistency and still use them to communicate objective truths [1]. When used coherently, language is used in a rational manner that allows for mutual communication between non-telepathic beings. One must use logic to spot inconsistencies in how people use language, like, for instance, when someone defines a word a certain way and then soon after uses it to convey a different meaning.
Analytic philosophers (I am definitely one) use logic to deconstruct and thus analyze linguistic propositions, as well as the concepts they represent, using reason to appraise the verifiability of the concepts expressed by language. They are often contrasted with continental philosophers, who focus on the more experiential, existential aspects of human life--not that analytic philosophy does not allow for existentialism, for it certainly does! It is just that historical continental philosophers were not as concerned with actually verifying ideas in any thorough sense.
Of course, a sound epistemology is the only way to know if one is correct in one's conclusions to begin with [2], so without an emphasis on legitimate epistemology one is at best right by accident. In other words, continental philosophy without analytic philosophy attached in some way is nonsense (there is no way to know the human condition without logic). Despite these loose differences in how the two are sometimes categorized, one could be both an analytic and continental philosopher in the same way that one can be both a rationalist and empiricist [3] as I am. As long as a quest to understand human nature does not neglect rationalism and correct epistemology, there is nothing about continental philosophy in itself that is unsound; likewise, as long as an analytic philosopher or rationalist does not stray from reason, there is nothing problematic about engaging in continental philosophy.
An example of an analytic philosopher from history would be Descartes (not that he applied rationalism consistently), whereas an example of a historical continental philosopher would be Kierkegaard. Of course, as I already said, there is no contradiction in emphasizing logic, linguistics, and existentialism--as long as the latter is not pursued in a manner contrary to reason. The pairing of language and logic is not irrelevant to discovering the human experience, for logic, at least, must be used in order to even know what it means to be human.
Logic must be used to even have a framework for understanding meaning and identity, and language must be used to convey any findings to other humans. Precise language and a correct grasp of logic are vital to philosophical endeavors. Without the clarity that they provide, one is lost in uncertainty, inability to communicate properly, or both.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-relativity-of-language.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/language-can-describe-truth.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-reliability-of-experience.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-necessity-of-experience-to-knowledge.html
No comments:
Post a Comment