The following post is actually a blog entry I wrote in 2008 — when my interest in philosophy was strong & my love for language budding. It does contain a few edits to suit my present stylistic tastes, but content-wise, judge it as written by a non-linguist. Please do listen to the videos — what I write is a commentary. Re-reading this blog entry makes me really look forward to tackling Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (next on my docket). Anyway, enjoy! — MLR
Here are two of my most favorite lectures by the English philosopher, Alan Watts, set to video:
Who is it that Knows There is No Ego?
For purposes of description, we must break the world down into some sort of units. This is the basis of Calculus. How do you measure a curve? Well, you treat it as a set of points; … although it isn’t a set of points. There is no such thing as a point.
The tendency of language is to compartmentalize the Universe as a way to understand and interpret — much like a Rorschach Blot. However, the Universe, as Watts claims, is an organism to which we are all a part of. And much like the question “Where does your neck end and your head begin?” it is only through general, but largely arbitrary, agreement of terms and definitions that we can work out any concrete, entirely separate entities.
And while this is admittedly beneficial as far as communication and social interaction are concerned, it has its detriments when language takes us too far into separating ourselves from the Universe. We are in tune with the world, and to think of ourselves as separate from this organism in effect eradicates the significance of of a holistic Universe in the first place — and don’t we assume that the Universe is in fact the sum of all “things”?
Language is a tool; language is use. But to equate what we put into language, or understand with language, with reality is a mistake.
To Speak the Truth
We populate the world with ghosts which arise out of the structure of our language and thus, therefore, are the structure of our thinking.
To comprehend the world through language, which is our natural tendency (our only tendency), is to make unexamined assumptions. The language itself constrains our worldviews; our ways of interpreting and understanding and acting. Inevitably, we cannot fathom our Universe by way of a system of describing it that essentially constrains it.
We cannot understand the world though language, but Alan Watts says that because this is our sole mechanism for doing so, we will never grasp the truth that rests at the heart of all things. He also addresses the false assumption built into our language that things are made of “stuff” that must be “formed” — this assumption calling into necessity a creator or a “former.” Reminding anyone of Plato?
When we try to perceive the Universe we are fundamentally looking into ourselves as the Universe. But we cannot look at ourselves and language cannot interpret itself through language. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, a mathematical theorem, tells us rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth.
Since writing this I’ve obviously learned a fair amount about language & linguistics. Unfortunately, I haven’t continued to pursue philosophy nearly as much, though like I said, I’m picking up Wittgenstein ASAP. Anyway, when I talk about language constraining our worldview, I mean it gives us a finite set of ways for which have a natural proclivity to describe reality. I really, really don’t mean to conflate this with linguistic determinism à la Sapir/Whorf at all. I’m currently reading a book called From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language by Jerome Feldman. I find that it quite nicely relates to this idea of the constraints of language & thinking. When I finish it I’ll probably be ready to write a blog about it, so watch out for that.
Megan L. Risdal