If philosophy is inside the world it examines, then the language in which philosophy thinks cannot remain invisible.
This problem had been present from the beginning. Plato had already asked whether language gives us access to things or merely names them. Aristotle had distinguished words, concepts and things, and his logical investigations showed that the forms of language matter to the structure of argument.
But for much of the philosophical tradition, language remained primarily a medium through which thought could be expressed.
Modern philosophy increasingly made it an object of inquiry in its own right.
The reason is not difficult to see.
If human beings inherit languages, then they inherit distinctions. A language does not merely provide names for a world already divided into natural categories. It gives speakers resources for making distinctions, describing relations and organising experience.
And those resources have histories.
This makes language part of the historical formation of the self.
Herder had already emphasised the intimate relation between language, culture and human understanding. Humboldt would push the idea further: different languages are not simply different vocabularies laid over an identical conceptual world. They participate in different ways of articulating experience.
Language therefore becomes one of the conditions through which a world becomes intelligible.
This has consequences for philosophy.
If concepts are partly embodied in linguistic practices, then philosophical problems may sometimes arise from the way language works. A distinction that seems metaphysically profound may depend upon a grammatical distinction. A question may appear unavoidable because the language in which it is asked makes a particular contrast seem natural.
Nietzsche makes this possibility particularly provocative. He repeatedly draws attention to the assumptions carried by grammar itself: the tendency to imagine an agent behind an action, a substance behind a quality, a stable thing behind a process.
The grammar of thought can quietly become the ontology of thought.
Later, Wittgenstein would transform the problem again. Instead of asking only whether words correspond correctly to things, he could ask how words function within forms of life. Meaning is not simply attached to an isolated expression; it depends upon practices, contexts and relations of use.
The philosophical problem shifts.
Perhaps some philosophical puzzles are not problems awaiting a metaphysical solution.
Perhaps they arise because language has been taken out of the circumstances in which it ordinarily makes sense.
This is another transformation in the possibility-space of philosophy.
Language can now be investigated not merely as a vehicle for expressing thought, but as part of the conditions under which thought becomes possible.
That does not make reality linguistic.
Nor does it mean that words create the world at will.
The deeper point is relational.
Human beings encounter a world through practices of description, classification, comparison and response. Language participates in those practices, while the world constrains what those practices can successfully sustain.
The relation runs both ways.
We inherit languages, but we also change them.
Our concepts shape what we notice, yet experience can force us to revise the concepts through which we describe it.
Language therefore belongs to the same reciprocal process we have encountered throughout this series: inheritance creates constraints; constraints create possibilities; possibilities lead to new forms of thought and action.
Once language becomes visible in this way, philosophy faces a final complication.
If our questions are formulated in historically inherited languages, and if those languages help constitute the distinctions through which we think, then there may be no completely neutral standpoint from which philosophy can examine itself.
The philosopher is situated in history.
Situated in society.
Situated in language.
And yet still capable of questioning all three.
The possibility-space of philosophy has therefore become remarkably strange.
Philosophy began by asking what the world is.
It eventually learned to ask how we know it, how we came to be the knowers we are, how our societies formed us, how our concepts arose, and how the language in which we ask these questions shapes what can be said.
Now even the medium of philosophical questioning has become part of the question.
We cannot simply think outside the language through which we think.
But perhaps we can learn to think differently within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment