Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

The Right Words? - Trollface Socrates (H-01) / Section 14, Group 1

(Jointly written with Section 14 of Dr. Oliver's Introduction to Philosopy Class. See Below)

I wasn’t connected to the internet when I wrote my kick-ass blog post, so I promptly lost it when I tried to upload a picture. Lacking the will to rewrite the said post in its entirety, I will neatly sum it up below. >___<



Ludwig Wittgenstein believed that philosophy was trying to become a pseudo-science of sorts by trying to answer the questions to purely conceptual theories and ideas, or things that could never be explained because they ultimately lie beyond our means of comprehension. He believed that philosophy had its roots in trying to describe the general principles of the world and the problem with language, at least in relation to philosophy, was that it was being used as an attempt to try to explain the unexplainable, the things that simply cannot be materialized into a word. He believed that language oversimplified the arguments that philosophers were trying to make to prove their points, however abstract they may be. As a result, Wittgenstein asserted that philosophy always has been and will continue to essentially fail at its central issue of trying to accurately discern the human condition.

In a way, Wittgenstein is absolutely right. Humanity, above all, is a constantly changing and a highly individual concept. Part of philosophy’s major frustration is that the human condition lacks a set state, and as the world experiences changes in civilizations and cultures, the human experience will change along with it. Language in many ways fails to capture many things, from the basest, most primal emotions that exist in our hearts the most complex and beautiful ideas that exist in our minds, and the major shortfall of verbal communication is that it is unable to accurately frame these incredibly abstract ideas and sensations in a way the eliminates confusion and chances for miscommunication and misinterpretation as well.

However, there is one fundamental area where we can’t agree with Wittgenstein, and that is that language doesn’t fail when it fails when it is unable to describe the collective human experience. For more how we feel about this (since our interpretation of the topic is about the same, and I’ve lost like two hours of my life to this already), I’ll going to refer you to Krysta Frost’s post on the same subject, courtesy of my group collaboration with Section 14 this Tuesday.

Freebies of the Day
(So much for finishing this write-up early. I have a paper due tomorrow -_-)

Want More? – This Op-Ed written in the online edition of the New York Times by Paul Horwich, Professor of Philosophy at New York University accurately describes the theories put forth by Wittgenstein (and some ways, does an even better job of illustrating them that Little History did). If you’re still a bit confused on the topic, feel free to skim over the article here.

Something to Chew On –Do you feel like we can ever accurately use language to describe ourselves? Everything from our basest desires to our most complex ideas?

From the Quiz Bowl – This philosopher believed that language causes philosophy to distort itself by causing it to focus on the conceptual truths that we can never comprehend, and as a result we should refrain from talking about those subjects all together. (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

5 comments:

  1. I totally sympathize, Morgan, I've suffered similar losses myself. Guess we all have. One of the things language is good for is commiserating!

    Anyway, I appreciate all your hard work. It's not going unnoticed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You bring up a very good point that our world and the civilization that we live in is ever changing, which causes philosophers to have to come up with a different way of viewing different ideas and concepts of the new civilization. I can see why that is frustrating! (It would make me frustrated at the least, but things can change for the better and I would be fine with that!)

    I agree that language does fail in situations like describing different things in life. As our group touched on about vagueness, language can mean different things to different people. Some people might not understand what someone says because of the language that is used, but others might have an understanding of what is said. Also, emotions are hard to describe with language. After going on a massive roller coaster (I am a huge roller coaster fanatic!), I always get this adrenaline rush. However, how do I describe this feeling that I actually have? Actually, you can't really describe that feeling you have by language. It is really hard to do because other people may not know what you mean when you communicate it to them.

    Great post Morgan, and sorry that it deleted your previous post! And Dr. Oliver is right, your hard work is being noticed big time! Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Morgan, your "rushed" blog is still really good! haha and I agree that some things just cannot be accurately explained. For me, it was extremely hard to tell people about my experience in Haiti. It ended up me just making a bunch of sound effects with jumbled up words and no one understood what I was trying to say. And the conversation always ended with "...you just need to go sometime!" I think shared experiences make language less necessary. Like when I talk about my trip with other friends who have been, I can say "It was just like.. WOAH" and the other person knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's comforting to know that the other person understands you. It reminds me of when people say stuff like "I can't even put my love into words." The cool thing is that when you have shared feelings, you don't have to be able to accurately explain it, you both just know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once again, Morgan, you have great writing prowess!

    I was going to reference how poetry can go around the inability to describe the collective human experience, but I think that the other post you linked already alluded to it.

    Just because I want to, this is a poem related to your post and how words both mean a lot, and can mean nothing.

    The Quiet World
    BY JEFFREY MCDANIEL
    In an effort to get people to look
    into each other’s eyes more,
    and also to appease the mutes,
    the government has decided
    to allot each person exactly one hundred
    and sixty-seven words, per day.

    When the phone rings, I put it to my ear
    without saying hello. In the restaurant
    I point at chicken noodle soup.
    I am adjusting well to the new way.

    Late at night, I call my long distance lover,
    proudly say I only used fifty-nine today.
    I saved the rest for you.

    When she doesn’t respond,
    I know she’s used up all her words,
    so I slowly whisper I love you
    thirty-two and a third times.
    After that, we just sit on the line
    and listen to each other breathe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Wittgenstein that Philosophy tends to focus on the unanswerable questions. It's something we've had to deal with all semester. All the questions that will have now answer we, as humans, can conceive. I also semi agree that language isn't the best way of expression we have for our collective experiences. I think many people are able to better describe those experiences through art and music.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.