Language and Meaning
I'm currently reading a book entitled _Phenomenology of Language_. It is a most interesting study on what language as a phenomenon is and how it is used to express meaning. It's given rise to a number of questions in my mind.
Language, as Dr. Kwant puts it, and I am inclined to agree, is the way in which two parties express a reality to each other. For example, when I say the sentence "Eric and Craig are sharing a bottle of wine and conversing." I am using those words to express an external reality. Those words can be said in different ways, or even use different words, or even use different languages (verbal or not), but the reality is the same, that we are drinking wine and talking with each other. Simply put, the meaning is not dependent on the language used to describe the reality. Perhaps a better example would be in the field of science in terms of perhaps describing the structure of a human toe nail cell (something I know nothing about). The reality is external and not dependent upon the language, in that there is a nucleus, mitochondria, etc within the cell and also in describing the interaction of the internal parts of the cells. This can be seen through the verifiability of the facts by different people.
So if we take the above as true, that things have meanings outside of their language, the way of describing the reality for the purpose of expressing the meaning (at this point I do want to say that I think it is very possible and often the case that language itself can import meaning into the situation, if for no other reason than that there are symbols. But I do not feel that this is necessarily always the case, as in saying that "the table is made of wood."). If there is an underlying meaning. A reality which we are attempting to describe with language, then what does it mean for things to have meaning in and of themselves, for the reality to exist without external interpretation? Is the reality always so for the situation at hand (will the toe nail cell have a nucleus regardless of my saying it does?)? What does it mean for meaning to be not dependent upon the perceiver or interactor?
I want to say that if the meaning is external to the viewer, then there is a certain rigidity to the world and that even if we describe something differently or contrary to what we experience, etc, then there is a certain truth present that transcends the individual. I do not want to go as far as saying that it says that there is absolute truth as a result of this yet, but what does it mean to say that there is meaning regardless of us?
Language, as Dr. Kwant puts it, and I am inclined to agree, is the way in which two parties express a reality to each other. For example, when I say the sentence "Eric and Craig are sharing a bottle of wine and conversing." I am using those words to express an external reality. Those words can be said in different ways, or even use different words, or even use different languages (verbal or not), but the reality is the same, that we are drinking wine and talking with each other. Simply put, the meaning is not dependent on the language used to describe the reality. Perhaps a better example would be in the field of science in terms of perhaps describing the structure of a human toe nail cell (something I know nothing about). The reality is external and not dependent upon the language, in that there is a nucleus, mitochondria, etc within the cell and also in describing the interaction of the internal parts of the cells. This can be seen through the verifiability of the facts by different people.
So if we take the above as true, that things have meanings outside of their language, the way of describing the reality for the purpose of expressing the meaning (at this point I do want to say that I think it is very possible and often the case that language itself can import meaning into the situation, if for no other reason than that there are symbols. But I do not feel that this is necessarily always the case, as in saying that "the table is made of wood."). If there is an underlying meaning. A reality which we are attempting to describe with language, then what does it mean for things to have meaning in and of themselves, for the reality to exist without external interpretation? Is the reality always so for the situation at hand (will the toe nail cell have a nucleus regardless of my saying it does?)? What does it mean for meaning to be not dependent upon the perceiver or interactor?
I want to say that if the meaning is external to the viewer, then there is a certain rigidity to the world and that even if we describe something differently or contrary to what we experience, etc, then there is a certain truth present that transcends the individual. I do not want to go as far as saying that it says that there is absolute truth as a result of this yet, but what does it mean to say that there is meaning regardless of us?
Post a Comment