The language of "philosophy"

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was surprised when I discovered how big this issue may be.
An example:
If you translate the English word `random` to Norwegian, the word would be `tilfeldig` simple as that.

But if you translate the word `tilfeldig` to English the result is:
"accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic"

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to!
Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,538 • Replies: 14

No top replies

@molok69,

0 Replies

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was suprised when I discovered how big this issue may be.
An example:
If you translate the english word `random` to norwegian, the word would be `tilfeldig` simple as that.

But if you translate the word `tilfeldig` to english the result is:
"accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic"

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to!
Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficent and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

I feel that you have touched on a very important issue. I have personally struggled with this problem for days now. I usually just write of the top of my head. But you awoken in me, through some constructive criticism, that the words I use must be considered before written, for the consumption of the reader. How they perceive my words is more important then the statement I am trying to make. What a huge barrier to over come!!

I have seen over and over again in this forum, and of course other forums, people reply to posts only to give question to individual words, and not to the statement given. I luckily have just started to write, so I can implement into my writing the thinking of the words used, as much as the statement trying to be impressed.

I have personally tried to use words that are as simple as possible, so that their is no need to look up words in the dictionary to understand them. I feel that using complicated words in Philosophy, has left Philosophy for the few, instead of the many.

The fact that those like you molok69 that are immersed in another language, but are trying to converse in an English forum, must be very frustrating.

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

Yes, sometimes it is frustrating!

And as you know, PoPpAScience, the psychological aspects are important to the interchanging and understanding of information between human beings, and how can you exploit this to any reasonable degree, if your choice of words are wrong?

But more on the psychological aspects, as I find them very interesting and have given it some thought!

Face to face we can use for example `body language` and `tone of voice` to "manipulate" our speech with senses of sarcasm, irony, importance and so on. And by this create an "image" of our thoughts, for the receiver to get a better "picture" of them.

But now we are writing, and this opens for a lot of other things, first of all, the possibility of careful planning the choice of words, but also symbols, color, underlining may create wanted effects.

Just more thoughts!

1 Reply

@molok69,

molok69 - Issues such as this have been troublesome, especially when books were still copied by hand. Good translators do a great deal of research when they translate books, being mindful of language that is difficult to render.

Within philosophy, a number of philosophers have made a point to pay particularly close attention to the language of philosophy. Bertrand Russell, and other analytic philosophers made a very careful, logical study of language, while Santayana approached language as art.

Quote:

Face to face we can use for example `body language` and `tone of voice` to "manipulate" our speech with senses of sarcasm, irony, importance and so on. And by this create an "image" of our thoughts, for the receiver to get a better "picture" of them.

But now we are writing, and this opens for a lot of other things, first of all, the possibility of careful planning the choice of words, but also symbols, color, underlining may create wanted effects.

And in writing, an equal degree of subtlety exists as exists with our communication in view of others. If you doubt the illustrative ability of the written word, read Poe. Language can evoke emotion, have sarcasm, and all of these other things we have in face to face conversation.

0 Replies

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was surprised when I discovered how big this issue may be.
An example:
If you translate the English word `random` to Norwegian, the word would be `tilfeldig` simple as that.

But if you translate the word `tilfeldig` to English the result is:
"accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic"

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to!
Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

I think if you really want to become a philosopher you would trouble yourself to learn German. And that includes me out. I settle for my native tongue, not because it was native to any of my people, but because the English, like the Romans spread the seed of their language like their semen, far and wide. Now. If the point is to be understood. Forget it. It is possible to give understanding, but we cannot understand each other better than we can understand ourselves. Is the point exactness? Why would our measurement of the outside be any better than our insight? Is the point of language communication? I think not. It is better to speak slowly and be invited to dinner than to spend dinner time on the way to dinner. Maybe I can say that better. Communication is about the relationship. Philosophy is a form of relationship, so it does not matter what we say but that we say.

If the problem is self expression then it is better to receive than to give. Others have said it better. I love books of aphorisms or quotations. They are short to the point, they help one to think, and so speak, and they make one judge if the truth can be said when an approximation is more humane, or an exageration will say it with a megaphone. Old and retired I can read at my leisure. Young and at work I had hours to digest what was bone and gristle to most, distant from my source, chewing some well written line to pulp, biding my time and bending my back, and waiting for the chance to break that book and verify who said what. Only the lazy young or the wicked old have time for philosophy. Everyone else has to think long and write short.

0 Replies

@molok69,

Philosophy is all about expression of the ineffable, at least groundbreaking philosophy is; so I think that we dont need a new language as much as we need to be able to invent and redefine words at will.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

Philosophy is all about expression of the ineffable, at least groundbreaking philosophy is; so I think that we dont need a new language as much as we need to be able to invent and redefine words at will.

Just when I think my world can't get more confusing some one wants to start to invent and redefine words at will. Do you suppose they will write a dictionary at the same time?

0 Replies

@molok69,

I cannot see how current words and definitions manufactured in the past can be expected to perform to the highest standards of groundbreaking philosophy/science - it is seemingly obvious that one must invent new terms in order to represent what one has discovered, that is if any philosopher throughout the course of history has actually discovered anything... lol

So it seems in fact, following this realization, like philosophy isn't so much a search for truth as a system of brainwashing/persuading people into believing the polemics of 'respected' individuals, polemics fashioned with linguistic tools already present, not discoveries or inventions. Sounds like politics to me, or even worse, religion...

1 Reply

@molok69,

Modern philosophers, especially the likes of Wittgenstein and Russell and Derridas and Frege (and probably more) have focused on how much of philosophy boils down to vagaries of language. The whole idea of the unverifiable statement being devoid of any actual information content basically causes ALL of metaphysics to collapse into nothingness. And it explains why many philosophers (Kant being the most annoying of them) had to invent so many of their own words just for some degree of precision.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

I cannot see how current words and definitions manufactured in the past can be expected to perform to the highest standards of groundbreaking philosophy/science - it is seemingly obvious that one must invent new terms in order to represent what one has discovered, that is if any philosopher throughout the course of history has actually discovered anything... lol

So it seems in fact, following this realization, like philosophy isn't so much a search for truth as a system of brainwashing/persuading people into believing the polemics of 'respected' individuals, polemics fashioned with linguistic tools already present, not discoveries or inventions. Sounds like politics to me, or even worse, religion...

It is not people who persuade, but reason. It is not old words and definitions that we use, but our own. We breath life into words when we speak them. We give new meaning to old concepts, or, better; we affirm an eternal meaning to universal concepts.

I see something in what you say, a difficulty with politics. Since all things human are forms of relationship, and all our forms, ideas, concepts, and even words are forms of relationship, then politics are general. Politics are the personality of any relationship. As shakespeare said: When two people ride a horse, some one has to sit in front. All relationships no matter how extensive are one at a time. If you were married to ten people it would be one at a time, and some one always wants to sit in front. What does it matter if the goal for each is the same?

Let me offer a tip. If you try to command you will wish you were commanded. When ever I worked with anyone in my trade, I would be happy with a common goal because those who make the plan are the most desirous to see it succeed. Since there is only a million methods for skinning a cat, and the man with the plan supplies the bulk of the labor; why not follow? So, I do not fear politics, but expect politics.

The difference between a good purpose, and a bad purpose, is that people are more single minded in doing evil. Bad people are already by nature united. Good people trying to organize for good always cast their pearls after the swine of politics. There is not purpose so grand, essential, or imperitive that some one won't try to ball up with politics. Before the last battle people begin choosing sides for the next war. So, I don't like politics, but see politics as inevitable as long as people will not sacrifice some of their personality to the goal they seek. In our world of politics, we do not vote for people. People you can know. We vote for personalities we do not know, and as long as we can offer them no control we will be the victims of our own elected monsters.

0 Replies

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was surprised when I discovered how big this issue may be.
An example:
If you translate the English word `random` to Norwegian, the word would be `tilfeldig` simple as that.

But if you translate the word `tilfeldig` to English the result is:
"accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic"

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to!
Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

Just read an article by Derrida, think it was actually an address at a French philosophy symposium, where it seems there are those who look out for the language of philosophy, . . . especially as it concerns French philosophy it probably doesn't need to be said. Is it even possible to settle on philosophic meanings of technical terms of philosophy? Seems like a fine idea, but probably not possible or even desireable until we get all the loose ends nailed down--concepts such as 'being' or 'time'. Then we'll be good. BTW, 'random' in chemistry means uniform, as in uniform sample from a well-mixed batch of something.

1 Reply

@Fairbanks,

Fairbanks wrote:

Just read an article by Derrida, think it was actually an address at a French philosophy symposium, where it seems there are those who look out for the language of philosophy, . . . especially as it concerns French philosophy it probably doesn't need to be said. Is it even possible to settle on philosophic meanings of technical terms of philosophy? Seems like a fine idea, but probably not possible or even desireable until we get all the loose ends nailed down--concepts such as 'being' or 'time'. Then we'll be good. BTW, 'random' in chemistry means uniform, as in uniform sample from a well-mixed batch of something.

It is people that give language its meaning, and not philosophers, exactly. In fact, comprehending meaning in words, and meaning in all other forms of relationship would about make any person the equal of a philosopher.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Modern philosophers, especially the likes of Wittgenstein and Russell and Derridas and Frege (and probably more) have focused on how much of philosophy boils down to vagaries of language. The whole idea of the unverifiable statement being devoid of any actual information content basically causes ALL of metaphysics to collapse into nothingness. And it explains why many philosophers (Kant being the most annoying of them) had to invent so many of their own words just for some degree of precision.

Derrida plays with language like no other. Georgio Agamben has some interesting if profane etymological insights. Heidegger is tops if you follow Greek terms in philosophy. For totally incoherent English writing by a native Englishman nobody beats Whitehead. Kant had no linguistic talent at all, but we must read him anyway.

0 Replies

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Yeah! This is so frustrating. This issue pursues us, not only in philosophy, but in everything we do. If we could understand each other perfectly, we could even avoid conflicts and wars.
I'll call it a tragedy that we have so many different languages in the world.

When we exchange philosophical thoughts, we just share the foam on the beer. When we try to make our own words to express our thoughts, all the surrounding non-philosophers may think our talks are bullshit.

0 Replies

The language of "philosophy"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know