language as action, meaning as social context

i recently watched some excellent video on Utube re Searle on Wittgenstein and philosophy of language. Interview by Magee i think.

It struck me from those discussions that seeing language as action, and action coming from intent, then narratives also reveal intent. They provide the rules (or common themes) that make not only a shared narrative possible, but also intent (i.e., belief) by using that narrative. It seemed to me that Searle was complaining that Wittgenstein rejected further theories of language on the basis that a theory of language could not stand outside of language itself. The theory provides a use. Its use reveals intent, but language cannot be separated out from this. There is no perspective outside language to develop a theory of language, since our ways of seeing and communicating and conceptualising are themselves immersed within it, and thus cannot gain a meta perspective.

But Searle reacted that if someone says you cannot build a theory for such and such, then that challenged him to push the boundaries and attempt just that. We don't know what is possible until we try. This could easily be interpreted as casting Wittgenstein in a defeatist negative light. But as i see it it wasn't that Wittgenstein rejected analysis and theory, but he did reject the claim it could be complete, and thus by looking at the way language is used and functions, we learn more of the merits of all philosophies. (Though not merit as a standardised judgment, since that is falling back into the trap of finding a super perspective.)

Quite apart from the philosophical debate between these perspectives it occurred to me to look at the meta narrative of science and logical analysis, and see it in terms of the intent that Searle expressed personally, i.e., to break down the walls of ignorance with analytical inquiry, and positively create from the new knowledge.

That is laudable, but Wittgenstein's view that the diversity of the perceived world is composed like the language we use, of common themes could thus be seen to include Searle's perspective and intent. In that Wittgenstein by analogy was not saying we should leave the wall of ignorance intact, so much as we should not rely upon one narrative to complete the task. And that to recognise that many useful languages and narratives exist alongside science, etc. They too, but in a different form, aid our intent and knowledge and ability to live in social groups.

What I find here is a common theme running through postmodernism. The inclusion of science etc. within a multitude of narratives. But also, the recognition that a commitment to say scientific determinism (or any grand narrative) intensifies intent. And since language as a tool for useful intent is crucial to a narrative, commitment is itself an intent. A philosophical intent.

Thus it is through philosophical exploration of different narratives, (different philosophies) that we can come to recognise the crucial truths and concepts of each. And moreover, their intent. Thus we may reject a philosophy for it asks us to recognise as true things we do not believe in particular, but also we may reject the identified intent of a philosophy also. And its use. Where we may find dilemma is where we like one aspect (say the fundamental truths) but dislike the other(the overall themes of intent). And maybe through that dilemma we modify or change in order to embrace and use. To find a social community to share our narrative .... its intent, its agreed use and its world view. Truth is thus a matter of intention, agreement and use, because it is language as action in a social context.

Philosophy viewed this way could change our lives.