1. Would it really be possible for a logically perfect language?
Wouldn't this mean that everybody would have to start from scratch...and that would be near impossible. People would rebel. Modern technology such as social networking sites and mobile phones have caused a new wave of text language and abbreviations like 'LOL' for laugh out loud which would make it even harder for people to change their language when the technology some learnt it from is still around. Would it mean getting rid of our technological advances?
2. Pain.
We talked about pain - how do we feel pain? I know something hurts because I can feel it, it feels unpleasant...but how do we KNOW it hurts? WE WERE TAUGHT IT.
Through language and teaching we all know if something hurts or is going to be painful - but different cultures believe different things about pain.
For example women from Ethiopia when giving birth remain very quiet compared to women from Israel (and probably the rest of the world!) are particularly vocal. The Ethiopian women have been taught to deal with pain in a different way.
Here is my seminar paper:
Ludwig Wittgenstein has been described as ‘one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century’.[1] An Austrian philosopher who’s book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is concerned with the conditions which would have to be fulfilled by a logically perfect language.
The book was popular with the Logical Positivists as it spoke about the Verification Theory. This is a theory which says that if a sentence does not make logical sense then it is meaningless. I have found this mission statement from a university which I believe is nonsense as not all of it can be proven to be true.
‘We lead on strategic planning for the recruitment and progression of home fees students to the University of Westminster, we establish pre-entry mechanisms that contribute to the educational attainment of learners to and within the University and set in place a plan for awareness raising about opportunities at HE for all learners who have the motivation and ability to attain. Many of the activities under Widening Participation fall within its remit.’
Wittgenstein wants a logically perfect language. Is this even possible?! We would have to scrap everything we have ever learned at start again, but of course some people would disagree and fight against any change so it would be impossible to get everyone together. With the modern technology we have now such as social networking sites and blogs our language is ever developing faster than before with text language and abbreviations like ‘LOL’ for laugh out loud. We’re moving too fast to go back to the beginning.
Many people enjoyed reading Wittgenstein’s book and in particular George Orwell took his ideas of language and put them into his book 1984. About the USSR who removed certain words and letters from the alphabet to try and stop discrimination. Their theory; if there are no bad words in language then they cannot be used therefore stopping discrimination. They also thought that by having control over the language they would have control over people’s minds.
The preface begins with “this book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or similar thoughts.” I don’t think this is a good way to begin the book; for someone like me who has not already had such thoughts it deters me away from reading it. I want to be invited in to learn and understand as I read not be told that I will only understand if I have had previous thoughts about the subject. An example of how language can push people away.
5.621 The world and life are one. I do not really understand what he means by this statement but I thought it was beautiful.
According to Bertrand Russell ‘the essential business of language is to assert or deny facts’, I do not agree with this. The point of language is to communicate with people, to tell stories and to share emotions. I do understand that this does involve fact telling but I believe that the facts are secondary to the language. We don’t all think ‘I must speak facts or deny others in order to have a conversation’ we just have a conversation. However he does then say that facts are essential to be able to have interesting conversations.
No comments:
Post a Comment