The task of Philosophy is not to advance any complex or hidden theories, as sometimes is done in metaphysics, that underlie the surface features of language. The correct method would be to assemble reminders of how we actually use language in our everyday life that does not look for anything beneath the surface of language. However," 'Essence' is expressed by grammar" (P.I., para.371) and "Grammar tells what kind of object anything is. (Theology as grammar)". (P.I., Para. 373).
What Wittgenstein means by grammar is the "depth grammar" of language and not the "surface grammar" we learn in school grammar classes. "Depth grammar is employed in language-games and like any game we play, language-games too have rules. These rules are not strict boundaries, but overlapping and fluid ones. "Rule" and "agreement" are related to one another like cousins. Similarly, the uses of "rule" and that of "same" are interwoven as in the use of "proposition" and the use of "true". The tendency to create an ideal language is fraught with danger as our ordinary language is perfectly in order as it is. The consequence of this insight was that his own "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and the "Principia Mathematica" of Bertrand Russell fell by the wayside. G. E. Moore's "Philosophy of Common Sense" had to beat a fast retreat on epistemological grounds. The "depth grammar' of our language governs our use of words and to look for a "perfect' and "idealistic" use of words is nothing but a mirage.
" 'But the words, significantly uttered,have after all not only a surface, but also the dimension of depth' ". (P.I., para. 594). This depth in the form of a deeper meaning one may have in one's mind is not what is meant by depth grammar. In search of meaning of words, the context of each speaker's description of his or her 'meaning' of some expression reveals 'depth grammar'. Wittgenstein investigates 'meaning' from different directions through concepts of 'family resemblances' of 'meaning', 'understanding', 'thinking', 'intending' and similar concepts. "...When we mean something, it is like going up to someone"..." we go up to the thing we mean" (P.I., para. 455). Here we have a reference to 'intentionality' treated in P.I. from para. 428 to para. 465. 'Intentionality' is crucial in understanding how language is connected to reality. When a person actually uses words, depth grammar reveals whatever it is that accompanies those words. 'Meaning' encompasses the subjective-human aspects and pin-pointing meaning at the same time brings out the 'deep meaning' enmeshed in the 'depth grammar'. We refer to the surrounding circumstances and relationships that accompany our language use through depth grammar.It is rooted in a whole set of activities into which language is woven,derived from 'forms of life' of the subject or the subjects involved.
'Surface grammar' is about words and their syntactic features, whereas 'depth grammar' is about the way an expression is used and refers to its semantic character. While the 'surface grammar' remains the same in various uses, 'depth grammar' is context-sensitive and varies due to change of contexts and is constituted by rules of language-games. The connection between 'doing' and 'meaning' constitutes language-games. Depth grammar only describes and in no way explains the use of signs (See P.I., para. 496). The wrong notions of 'understanding', 'thinking', 'meaning', 'intending' etc. as mental processes are demolished by a grammatical investigation of the words 'reading' and 'understanding'. We do not base our criteria for determining if someone has understood something or is reading something on inner states or processes, but on their external actions. There are no absolute rules or fundamental justification for following rules the way we do as our shared participation in certain forms of life is enough justification.
With these glimpses of "Meanings of Words as their Use in Language" as practiced in Linguistic Analysis by the Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, we shall proceed to the last Post of this Study connecting them to the meaningfulness of the expression "Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead".
What Wittgenstein means by grammar is the "depth grammar" of language and not the "surface grammar" we learn in school grammar classes. "Depth grammar is employed in language-games and like any game we play, language-games too have rules. These rules are not strict boundaries, but overlapping and fluid ones. "Rule" and "agreement" are related to one another like cousins. Similarly, the uses of "rule" and that of "same" are interwoven as in the use of "proposition" and the use of "true". The tendency to create an ideal language is fraught with danger as our ordinary language is perfectly in order as it is. The consequence of this insight was that his own "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and the "Principia Mathematica" of Bertrand Russell fell by the wayside. G. E. Moore's "Philosophy of Common Sense" had to beat a fast retreat on epistemological grounds. The "depth grammar' of our language governs our use of words and to look for a "perfect' and "idealistic" use of words is nothing but a mirage.
" 'But the words, significantly uttered,have after all not only a surface, but also the dimension of depth' ". (P.I., para. 594). This depth in the form of a deeper meaning one may have in one's mind is not what is meant by depth grammar. In search of meaning of words, the context of each speaker's description of his or her 'meaning' of some expression reveals 'depth grammar'. Wittgenstein investigates 'meaning' from different directions through concepts of 'family resemblances' of 'meaning', 'understanding', 'thinking', 'intending' and similar concepts. "...When we mean something, it is like going up to someone"..." we go up to the thing we mean" (P.I., para. 455). Here we have a reference to 'intentionality' treated in P.I. from para. 428 to para. 465. 'Intentionality' is crucial in understanding how language is connected to reality. When a person actually uses words, depth grammar reveals whatever it is that accompanies those words. 'Meaning' encompasses the subjective-human aspects and pin-pointing meaning at the same time brings out the 'deep meaning' enmeshed in the 'depth grammar'. We refer to the surrounding circumstances and relationships that accompany our language use through depth grammar.It is rooted in a whole set of activities into which language is woven,derived from 'forms of life' of the subject or the subjects involved.
'Surface grammar' is about words and their syntactic features, whereas 'depth grammar' is about the way an expression is used and refers to its semantic character. While the 'surface grammar' remains the same in various uses, 'depth grammar' is context-sensitive and varies due to change of contexts and is constituted by rules of language-games. The connection between 'doing' and 'meaning' constitutes language-games. Depth grammar only describes and in no way explains the use of signs (See P.I., para. 496). The wrong notions of 'understanding', 'thinking', 'meaning', 'intending' etc. as mental processes are demolished by a grammatical investigation of the words 'reading' and 'understanding'. We do not base our criteria for determining if someone has understood something or is reading something on inner states or processes, but on their external actions. There are no absolute rules or fundamental justification for following rules the way we do as our shared participation in certain forms of life is enough justification.
With these glimpses of "Meanings of Words as their Use in Language" as practiced in Linguistic Analysis by the Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, we shall proceed to the last Post of this Study connecting them to the meaningfulness of the expression "Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead".
No comments:
Post a Comment