Philosophical Dimensions of Language with Reference to Peter Angeles' Philosophical Dictionary

Language is a serious subject in contemporary Western philosophy; it has received attention in both prevalent domains of contemporary philosophy, known as the Anglo-Saxon and Continental European traditions. On the one hand, by raising numerous topics and issues, it has ignited the fire of philosophical disputes and debates, and on the other hand, by putting forward various methods and theories, it has played a significant role in extinguishing it. Accordingly, we witness various types of philosophical language-oriented studies, research, and theories, the proper understanding and comprehension of which depends on distinguishing and differentiating them from one another. Unfortunately, in our philosophical texts, both translations and original works, many confusions and errors are evident in this regard, chief among them being the failure to distinguish and differentiate between the various philosophical domains concerning language.

Among the philosophical domains, one must first point to the linguistic movement that emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which, although not entirely rooted in the Anglo-Saxon domain, has now become the prevailing tradition within it. Today, we recognize this tradition as "Analytic Philosophy"[1], which has become somewhat synonymous with Anglo-Saxon philosophy. The movement or tradition of "Analytic Philosophy" can be considered a macro-domain that has nurtured smaller philosophical domains concerning language within itself. These domains are: the theory or method of "Linguistic Analysis Philosophy"[2], the theory or method of "Ordinary Language Philosophy"[3], and the discipline or branch of "Philosophy of Language"[4].

Before bringing up considerations and remarks regarding the philosophical domains concerning language, it must be noted that there is a distinction between all these philosophical domains and the science of "Linguistics"[5]. In particular, the philosophy of language should not be equated with linguistics, nor should the philosophical study of language be confused with its scientific study. The philosophy of language is a branch of philosophy that studies language with a "philosophical-theoretical" approach, whereas linguistics is a branch of the humanities that takes an "empirical-historical" approach to language. With this description, it is clear that dealing with linguistics and its issues is technically outside the scope of this article. However, regarding the four aforementioned philosophical domains, points drawn from Peter Angeles' philosophical dictionary are mentioned so that through them, the distinction and differentiation between them may be clarified.

Peter Angeles, who himself belongs to the Anglo-Saxon domain and the tradition of analytic philosophy, has commendably undertaken this clarification in his philosophical dictionary. Compared to other philosophical dictionaries, this dictionary has the feature of dedicating a separate entry for each of the four mentioned philosophical domains. Peter Angeles, acknowledging the difficulty and problems of a precise demarcation between them, has tried to provide components, albeit concisely, for their distinction and differentiation. What needs to be said from a critical perspective about his philosophical dictionary in general, and about this writing in particular, is that his work essentially belongs to a period whose prominent characteristic is the absence of a conciliatory and sympathetic view towards Continental European philosophy.

It is worth mentioning that Peter Angeles adopted various methods in writing these entries. Regarding "Analytic Philosophy," he has undertaken a "personality-centered" report and briefly stated the views of thinkers who played a pioneering role in laying its foundations. In the case of "Linguistic Analysis Philosophy" and "Ordinary Language Philosophy," after providing a general definition, by addressing their general outlines and key points, he offers more details and explanations for their identification and distinction. "Philosophy of Language" is also introduced in a "problem-centered" manner by mentioning the most important questions raised within it.

A – The Movement or Tradition of Analytic Philosophy:

Analytic philosophy is a philosophical movement that emerged in the twentieth century and became prevalent especially in England and the United States. Analytic philosophy emphasizes language and the attempt to analyze propositions (or concepts, or linguistic expressions, or logical forms), and its goal is to find the best and shortest logical form suited to the facts or the meanings conveyed. The fundamental problem in analytic philosophy is obtaining definitions, whether linguistic or non-linguistic, real or contextual. (Contextual definitions[6] here primarily refer to those definitions that specify the particular use of symbols[7] through which one set of symbols may be substituted for another.) In analytic philosophy, there are four views on this subject, which, considering their originators, are as follows:

1—The view of Bertrand Russell: The aim of analytic philosophy is to translate propositions that are grammatically misleading into logically correct forms.

2—The view of George Edward Moore: Analytic philosophy does not concern itself with discovering truths about the world but rather defines or clarifies concepts to some extent. In the process of analysis, the "analysandum"[8] is the concept to be analyzed, and the "analysans"[9] is the concept that is logically equivalent to it and replaces it. Accordingly, the analysans and the analysandum become synonymous, and this synonymy brings greater clarity.

3—The view of Ludwig Wittgenstein: The purpose of analytic philosophy is to reduce all descriptive and complex propositions (statements, linguistic expressions) to simple propositions. Thus, these propositions become ultimate, irreducible units that represent the simple, irreducible units of the real world. The fundamental doctrine is that philosophy cannot transcend the boundaries of language.

Philosophy cannot describe or explain how language relates to the world. This relation can only be shown. The real task of philosophy is to clarify what can and cannot logically be said.

4—The view of Rudolf Carnap: Analytic philosophy is the systematic revelation of the logical syntax of concepts and language (the structure of grammar and its rules), and it pays special attention to the language of science, which is absolutely formal. The primary concern of analytic philosophy is not the nature of word meanings (semantics) and the semantic connection between our language and the real world, but rather, to some extent, dealing with the structural relations common among languages.

B — The theory or method of linguistic analysis philosophy:

Linguistic analysis philosophy claims that by analyzing ordinary/everyday language[10], one can better understand the nature of philosophical problems. In this respect, philosophical problems are of two kinds:

1—Linguistic problems that are rooted not in reality but in the distortions of language and are solved with regard to them.

2—Those philosophical problems that, by observing the distortions of language, dissolve/disappear by themselves. Here, the purpose of linguistic analysis is to make philosophical questions disappear. For example, the traditional problem of "induction" is a "pseudo-problem"[11]. Once the problem of induction is clarified in terms of linguistic uses and the meanings of words such as "evidence," "reason," "past," "future," "prediction," "repetition," there is no longer any reason to consider it a real problem.

The following views are found in linguistic analysis philosophy:

1—Language bears no relation to the external world, neither in terms of picturing nor in terms of structure[12] (in a one-to-one correspondence).

2—Language is not a system of meanings obtained independently through the act of naming existing entities and realities.

3—Language is a highly diverse tool for use.

4—The meanings of words and sentences arise from their use within a context[13]. They do not designate or name anything independently of their use.

5—Words, sentences, and meanings perform diverse functions such as "naming," "classifying," "listing," "commanding," "recommending," "describing," "denoting," "expressing," "evoking."

6. The meanings of words and sentences must be examined within the context of the rules, customs, and conventions governing the use of words and sentences. Meaning has little to do with the actual relationship between words and the things they represent.

Some of the anti-metaphysical claims of linguistic analysis philosophy are as follows:

1. Language (propositions, statements) cannot provide us with a unified picture of reality.

2. Language cannot represent (correspond to) reality (the actual affairs about which it speaks).

3. Language is an attempt to express what can merely be observed. Accessing what lies beyond the symbols of any language is, by its very nature, impossible. To speak of what lies beyond linguistic symbols, we would be forced to employ those very symbols or other symbols. In fact, the attempt to reach beyond language by using language is to lay the foundation of a metaphysical structure that merely reveals its own content and system.

4. Philosophy clarifies concepts but does not give us metaphysical or scientific knowledge of the world.

Some analysts or linguistic philosophers include: Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Wisdom, Gilbert Ryle.

C. The Theory or Method of Ordinary Language Philosophy:

Ordinary language philosophy, like linguistic analysis philosophy, claims that by analyzing ordinary language (its meanings, contents, forms, and uses), the nature of philosophical problems can be better understood, and a solution for them can also be sought. In this analysis, it is shown how the general philosophical viewpoint and the fundamental presuppositions of ordinary language indicate truths about the actual world. The basic doctrines of ordinary language theory are:

1. The language used in everyday conversations (ordinary language) is sufficient for philosophical use.

2. The presuppositions of ordinary language about the actual world have a correct perspective or structure.

3. Any deviation from ordinary language creates superfluous philosophical and metaphysical knots (dilemmas and nonsense).

4. Solutions to philosophical problems must be discovered by avoiding the incorrect use of ordinary language words and their meanings.

Something like a shared notion or set of beliefs among ordinary language philosophers is very rare. Some are determinists and others are not. Some adhere to scientism and others do not have such a commitment. However, generally, ordinary language philosophers agree that philosophical knots cannot be untied through the methods of symbolic/formal logic. Ordinary language is the key to untying philosophical knots. Ordinary language is not an artificial language^[14]; nor is it a kind of "calculus"^[15]. The perspectives presupposed in ordinary language about the structure of reality and everyday experience are not obtained through the application of artificial systems. Formal systems are also inapplicable in ethical and psychological issues.

John Austin, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gilbert Ryle, and John Wisdom are names that have contributed to ordinary language philosophy. In most cases, drawing a precise boundary between ordinary language philosophy and linguistic analysis philosophy is difficult; indeed, some see no difference between the two at all.

D. The Discipline or Branch of Philosophy of Language:

Philosophy of language is the conceptual analysis of language, which in its totality includes all the issues raised in "semantics"^[16] as well as some other issues. Questions such as the following are raised in the study of semantics:

1. What is the meaning of "meaning"?

2. What are the types of meanings?

3. How is meaning conveyed?

4. What is language?

5. What is the relationship between language and meaning? How is meaning formed through language?

6. Which class of meanings are conveyed by proper names, particular terms, general terms, descriptions, and definitions?

7. What determines that two linguistic expressions have the same meaning?

8. In what way does the context of a linguistic expression create and/or influence meaning?

9. What is the distinction between literal meaning and figurative meaning? (What meaning is conveyed, and how, through the use of metaphor, simile, irony, allegory, etc.?)

10. Under what conditions can we say that a meaning is vague, imprecise, inconsistent, etc.?

Other issues in the philosophy of language include:

1. What are the exclusive characteristics, if any, of religious language, moral language, poetic language, scientific language, mathematical language, computer language, sign language, and body language?

2. What is the relationship between language and knowledge, and between language and intuitive understanding?[17] Is the acquisition of knowledge possible without language?

3. What is the relationship between concepts constructed with the aid of language and the reality about which conceptualization occurs?

4. For what purposes and in what ways can language be used?

5. What are linguistic acts?[18] How are they distinguished from linguistic functions?

6. What is a symbol (sign)?[19]

7. What are the types of symbols? How are they invented or constructed?

8. What is communication?[20]

9. How is the communication of meaning possible?

10. What variety exists in modes of communication?

11. Are there ways to perfect language? How are (perfect) symbolic languages constructed?

12. Are there presuppositions in natural language or ordinary language such that they provide insight into the nature of mind and/or the nature of reality?

* Angeles, Peter Adam. , Dictionary of Philosophy, Barnes & Noble Books, 1981

[1]- Analytic Philosophy

[2] -Linguistic Analysis Philosophy

The philosophy of linguistic analysis is referred to in short as "linguistic analysis" or "linguistic philosophy." From

[3]- Ordinary Language Philosophy

[4]- Philosophy of Language

[5]- Linguistics

[6]-Contextual Definition

[7]- Symbol

[8]- Analysandum

[9]- Analysans

[10]- Ordinary Language

Ordinary/common language is used in contrast to symbolic/formal language.

[11]- Pseudo-problem

[12]- Isomorphic

[13] -Context

[14]- Artificial Language

Artificial language is used in contrast to natural language.

[15]- Calculus

[16]- Semantics

[17]- Intuitive Understanding

[18]- Linguistics Acts

[19]- Sign

[20]- Communication

.

---

.

PDF file of the article Philosophical Dimensions of Language with Reference to Peter Angeles' Philosophical Dictionary

.

---

.

Philosophical Dimensions of Language with Reference to Peter Angeles' Philosophical Dictionary

Author: Masoud Zanjani

Source: Ketab-e Mah-e Falsafeh, Year 1, Azar 1386, No. 3

.

---

.