Epistemology: Communication

Language is something that to many philosophers is an impossible hurdle- for we might understand something in our minds, but are unable to communicate our ideas.  Also, many philosophers wonder about the nature of language, wondering if it's innate, necessary, or flawed in idea.  One of these wonderful philosophers is Wittgenstein, who struggled immensely with communicating (had a stutter, paused mid-sentence, ect) grew so fed up with the whole thing that he moved to a hut in Norway and became another of the hermit-philosophers that so obsess me.

The philosophy of linguistics and communication is considered by many who do not dabble in this field to be arbitrary, since of course we need language and we use it all the time without problem thank you very much.  There are many languages, even, to choose from, so what's the big hoo-hah?

Well, language poses as a brutal flaw to the logical positivist that is Berkeley (see Locke's Empiricism if you want) but some points still stand.  The acquisition of language is vital for the acquisition of some knowledge, and one of the defining things about humanity is that we communicate ideas through language, thus we are able to learn more complex things.  Although we are not born innately with the knowledge of language, we are able to acquire it so that's good.

Berkeley postulated that we know language and learn it through "operant conditioning" which is the application of a sound to a visual stimulus.  It was proven bunk by Noam Chomsky, who refuted it by saying that if that's all we got to know words, we would never know words, bruh.  Chomsky also pointed out that two people talking can arrange words into totally unique sentences that no one has ever heard before, yet both know the meaning.

Moreover, Chomsky says that grammatical mistakes that involve correctly conjugating an irregular verb as if it is regular is something that a person born with acquired linguistics would not do- thus, we have a basic innate understanding of how things ought to be done, but we have to learn the irregulars through toil.

The problem of communicating ideas is more deeper than just incorrectly constructing new sentences.  Wittgenstein (the hermit in Norway who enjoys talking about talking) proposed a revolutionary idea that reshaped how we think about talking. Language itself is totally stupid and doesn't tell us anything.  The sounds that the words "purple elephant" make when spoken are utterly arbitrary, however, humans are able to hear those sounds and construct a picture in their minds.

While this makes perfect sense, really, it quickly becomes apparent that we are sucky bad at perfectly reconstructing our pictures in the minds of someone else.  This means that we miscommunicate all the time.  Thus, Wittgenstein proposed that if you don't have something really good or really precise to say, don't say anything.  Anyway, Wittgenstein wasn't done.  He later postulated that all communication is is just this silly word game.

What this means is less of a game, really, more like intention.  Person A speaks to Person B, saying a comforting sentence which Person B interprets as a sarcastic one.  This implied meaning is impossibly hard for someone to grasp.  So, in addition to not being able to reconstruct pictures, we fail to understand the stuff that floats around the pictures to give them meaning.  Thus, in Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy, it is so much easier to just not talk at all and live a quiet life alone.  However, we can't all do that, so we're stuck playing this vicious game with each other.

He also talks about how use of language with others is more like a tool to understand ourselves.  Which is kinda true.

I am just gonna include this little snippet at the end here about use of language in conjunction to eastern philosophy, particularly Taoism.  The very first teaching in taoist philosophy is that one cannot understand the Tao through language or study, that it is ineffable, and studying the Tao is as fruitful as throwing the Tao Te Ching into a river.  This is probably due to the fact that our languages simply cannot capture truth accurately, so it is better to not try at all.

In the 20th century, revolutionary thinker Derrida, (the guy that moved philosophy from the Socratic method of asking questions to find answers to deconstructing a concept so utterly that one can find the core idea within) began to question the value of communicating with others as well.  While he wasn't a hermit like Wittgenstein or Nietzsche, he didn't believe that the only way to philosophize was through philosophical discussions.  He preferred writing, and published over forty books within his lifetime.

Derrida's big idea was that, in a set of two ideas, we hold favoritism for one almost always.  This skews perception of things, and causes us to make assumptions.  Which is bad for communicating ideas, truly.  He wanted people to remove this assumption and preference for one thing and to pay more attention to the counterparts, for he felt that in doing so, we gain wisdom.

Read More

Religious Philosophy: Spinoza

Spinoza was a really odd guy, who dabbled in both religion and ethics but mostly in religion.  He had a number of important and somewhat revolutionary things to say about the nature of God, rather than His existence (which would occupy the time of Berkeley, for example)

Spinoza was born a Jew in Amsterdam, so he was exposed to a lot of Jewish teachings, but he himself did not agree with many of them.  He didn't like the idea of divine intervention, and was convinced that God didn't really care about the goings-on of humanity, rather, he was more interested in keeping things running and in balance.  This ever-so-slightly eastern take on religion was only the beginning of Spinoza's quest to reform religion into a science-based set of teachings... which would fail epically but more on that later, maybe.

This version of God that Spinoza- and later Einstein, even- would accept was an impartial, passive being that merely existed.  Everything that is, is God.  Actually, this coincides with a number of philosophies about God- and it even agrees with Christianity, to a certain extent.  The perfection that is God mandates that there is nothing God cannot do, thus he must be everywhere at once and do everything at once.  If that is the case, then Spinoza's take that God is impartial is surprisingly suitable.  If he has to do everything at once, then he is essentially existence itself, eh?

Anyway.  Spinoza's God would be against prayer, since the nature of prayer is to appeal to God in order to have something change about the universe.  Spinoza's God (shortened to S-God) would not ever actually answer prayer, since it is against his nature.  A human's purpose in life, rather than be God's slave or servant or minion, would be to study the way the universe works in order to understand S-God.  Anything else would be extremely narcissistic, and somewhat humorous to Spinoza.

Spinoza's odd reformation of religion would be inspired by the Stoics of ancient Greece and Rome.  These people believed that instead of protesting the way a system works (which is largely futile) one must do their utmost to understand it.  In doing so, one understands the necessity of the system, and can make the most of an unchangeable situation.  While this depressing situation counters everything we've been conditioned to do (mostly by the church.  See?  SEE?) it rings with truth.  Remember Hobbes, who said that having a bad system is better than no system at all?  The stoicist way is very akin to this.  Goodness, everything is making sense now!

Anyway, Seneca, one of the stoics, would compare people in society to a dog on a leash.  The leash tethers the dog to the person in much the same way that we are bound to necessity and truth, and the more one pulls against the leash, the more one is strangled and the more they suffer.  The dog that goes close to the human has the most freedom and is thereby the happiest, which is the state of being that a person should seek in their own lives.

Spinoza's way of studying God also contrasts traditional teachings.  Western religion preaches that in order to study God, one studies the Bible or Torah or Qur'an.  However, Spinoza recognized that these holy texts were written by uppity men, that didn't know God from atom and were just putting down imagined stories of an imagined being.

In response, Spinoza claimed that by studying nature, one comes to know God.  This actually rings very true to Taoism, which proclaims that in studying nature, one reaches the Tao or the Way, since nature is perfect on its own while we are not.
S

Read More

The World of Nietzche

There really isn't a particular place we can stick Nietzche since he doesn't really belong anywhere; Nietzche is an entity unto himself.  He was one of those lovely hermit philosophers, living and writing in the alps of Switzerland, grooming his mustache and having nervous breakdowns about horses.  Ah, yes, Nietzche.  Those who live by his teachings are regarded in the philosophy community as bizarre and a little bit... off, and yet... he is indisputably one of the most important philosophers who has ever lived.

Since he doesn't fit anywhere, I guess I'll stick it in ethics since I don't have much there.  To summarize his many, many teachings: you're fucked, admit you're fucked, do great things, and don't be a wimp.

Anyway, Nietzche wants you to admit that you have envy. This idea goes against the traditional teachings of many religions that claim that one should be ashamed of their envy. Nietzche, however, sorta follows the line that in admitting one's flaws one can learn how to correct them. The reason why we should recognize our desires is so we can work our very hardest to achieve them and in doing so, we can accept our own failure with dignity.

See, that's the thing. Nietzche was the übermensch guy that's maxims all relate to how one can achieve... not exactly perfection, but a state of being that is as good as it's gonna get. Nietzche's übermensch receives a shit ton of criticism since people who strive for it by his teachings are a little bit... odd, and his philosophy is SO controversial that many people who study philosophy actively despise him. Anyway. Back to his teachings.

Don't be a christian. Ah, now you're seeing why he's so widely hated, yes? Anyway, Nietzche was adamantly against the church and basically resented it for the sole reason that it protected people from their own envy. He claimed the church was just built of a bunch of weaklings that didn't have the gall to seek what they actually wanted. This is called slave morality. Basically, christianity is denial. Mwa mwa mwaaaaa.

On the same list of things-people-don't-want-to-hear we have the maxim that alcohol is baaaad. He himself only drank water. His hatred of alcohol stemmed from the same reasons as his resentment for christianity: both encourage denial. Alcohol numbs pain and helps to forget, which is something that should never, ever be done.

God is dead, and we have killed him, you and I. This famous line echoes the rising atheist movement in the 1800's, which- although he was opposed to christianity- he believed to be a generally bad thing. While he hated christianity, he did value morality in general. He did admit that morals should be taught through culture, IE in ancient greece where stuff was taught through plays. He lamented the loss of morality, and thus triggered his nervous breakdown.

Read More

Political Philosophy: Locke

John Locke is one of the most important contributors to English and... even American political philosophy- also Hobbes' big rival.  He was one of the most famous thinkers in the Enlightenment movement.  So, what did this guy do?  Let's find out!

Oh, yeah.  He's the blank slate dude but I'll talk about that later... right?  The way this empirical school applies to politics is somewhat important.  If everyone is born a blank slate, then all men are created equal thus everyone should have a say in what happens to them and others.  So, Locke was a fan of democracy.  Dare I say he was the father of MODERN democracy.

Locke was made a name when he proposed the controversial idea that people shouldn't be persecuted for their religious beliefs, and several other inalienable rights.  In fact, Locke was such a fan of rights that he said that everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (sound familiar?) and that everyone deserves a chance to speak in their government.  This idea of a democracy became the backbone for America, even.

This was strongly opposed by Hobbes, who said that since everyone acts in their own self interest this society of everyone having a say in the government would eventually degrade into stab-in-the-back fests, and that it would never work.  Instead, there should be an absolute ruler (IE Leviathan) that of course would never abuse his powers.

Locke responded that yes, a state of nature is bad and that if it were to exist an absolute ruler would arise, but such a society would be corrupt as all get out.  See Machiavelli as to why Princes suck.  So, Locke came up with a system where this democratic power is separated into schools where judicial, religious and executive powers are all split so if a person commits a crime he theoretically wouldn't get away with it.

Locke also had stuff to say about laws in general.  The nature of laws should not be to restrict liberties, rather, to enhance and protect them.  Since he was a firm believer in the Rights, his stance was that if a law does not protect, enhance, or promote rights, then the laws should not exist.  This contrasts Hobbes, who believed that an absolute ruler should basically micromanage everyone in order to keep them safe, or Machiavelli who thought that laws should only secure the rule of his Prince.

Read More

Simone de Beavoir

Don't have a good banner :(

So, Simone de Beauvoir!  She was a 1960's feminist (also a bit of a existentialist).  She's typically associated with the novel "The Second Sex" which is dense to the point of being a nightmare.  She also did "Ethics of Ambiguity," hence her existentialist lean, but we'll maybe talk about that later since....  this is the feminism section.

The focus of this text is that Woman has always been treated as an "other" to Man and this treatment is unjust.  However, de Beauvoir goes on excruciatingly long tangents as to why this is, only really making an argument in the last chapter.  But, writing reviews aside, the book does cover some major points.

Men are fortunate and have transcended the ambiguity of existence.  Women are, necessarily, shoved into the dirt as a way of maintaining the Male position in society as the entitled gender.  This arises from the simple biological fact that women, should they have a baby, are forced to sit idly during their pregnancy and men have to provide for the family.  This persists, and man becomes the "working" gender while the woman becomes the "idle" gender, or the Other.  In a society based on work for gain, this will always be the case.

That's the gist, anyway.  She also goes into the process that a baby goes through in becoming woman... which is a large part of the argument, really.  Here it goes:

Baby boys and baby girls all start out the same.  However, a baby girl is treated differently than a boy as she grows up, being given gentler things to play with such as dolls and teddy bears, while a boy is given sport-balls and a B-B Gun.  The conditioning of a girl to be jealous of a boy's toy (one is way more fun) makes the girl feel inferior.  The boys toys are also all designed to make the boy more macho, while the girl toys are made to make her feel more motherly.  This will begin the process.  During puberty, things happen to further the divide and make girls absolutely miserable once a month whilst boys have no such... issues.  And other things that de Beauvoir talks about.  Yadda yadda.

Short section... sorry.  It's really no fun.

Read More

Feminist Philosophy

Feminism is a relatively recent area of philosophy that doesn't get a lot of credit.  This is because, up until the 20th century, most philosophers didn't consider there to be anything wrong per se with women's roles in society (also, there was an EXTREME lacking in female philosophers!) but in the early part of the century, in the 1920's to be exact, some of the women in American society (we can has contribution in philosophy? le'gasp!) started being more... out.  This caused some thinkers to emerge that began to wonder why there is a divide in the sexes at all, should there be a divide, and is it natural?

Simone de Beauvoir, a 1960's French feminist, is a bit of the strong-arm in this movement, and also one of the prescribed readings for HL, so... I'll talk about her.  And some others.

Of course, there were some feminist philosophers before 1920, but they were... quashed.

Read More