I and Language
Man is the only being who has language.
- Language means one man saying to another something with regard to something.
- In language one uses signs to denote a referential object having a certain
interpretation/evaluation (meaning) of the object. There is a communication of at least two
persons.
Going back to consciousness–embodiment, one man cannot communicate soul to soul.
- Because of our embodiment, communication always must pass through the body. Signs
are physical i.e., using body, voice. It could be either written or oral.
- In any case it has to pass through the body. There are no direct intuitive communications
as well as there is no perfect communication. We cannot totally express something in as
much as it passes through the body which is itself limited.
- Nonetheless we succeed to a certain extent using signs.
As consciousness we could transcend the body but at the same time we cannot proceed from
soul to soul. This becomes a critique of two claims:
Traditional philosophy
- Truth itself could be grasped by man through his intellect.
- Critique: Man does not grasp truth absolutely but is in always in the level of meaning or
interpretation, always groping, and never gets to an absolute truth
- The old metaphysics is criticized on the other hand for saying that truth itself could be
grasped by man. Man does not grasp truth absolutely but is always in the level of meaning.
The old metaphysics argues from the point of view of intellect which grasps absolute truth
in itself. But to talk of being human, language is neither scientific nor metaphysical for we
are always in the level of interpretation. The consciousness, looking at the referential
object never totally grasps the meaning/truth of the object but remains in the level of
interpretation. We never get to the absolute truth; we are always groping. Amidst conflicts
and confusions, the best remedy is discourse/dialogue to reach a consensus which
eventually and constantly changes thus even pushing further the demand for it.
Scientific point of view
- says that the only way people could interact is body to body (mechanistic bodily functions
specially the senses where everything is a matter of pure physical interaction).
- This is criticized because although man is a body, he is still conscious and through the
use of signs transcends to the level of meaning.
Referential meaning in language means that we always refer to something, to an object when we
use signs. Every time we use language, we always refer to object, some situation in the world.
What is most important in language is not the referential object but the evaluation, judgment or
interpretation, the meaning.
Man is the only being who has language.
- Language means one man saying to another something with regard to something.
- In language one uses signs to denote a referential object having a certain
interpretation/evaluation (meaning) of the object. There is a communication of at least two
persons.
Going back to consciousness–embodiment, one man cannot communicate soul to soul.
- Because of our embodiment, communication always must pass through the body. Signs
are physical i.e., using body, voice. It could be either written or oral.
- In any case it has to pass through the body. There are no direct intuitive communications
as well as there is no perfect communication. We cannot totally express something in as
much as it passes through the body which is itself limited.
- Nonetheless we succeed to a certain extent using signs.
As consciousness we could transcend the body but at the same time we cannot proceed from
soul to soul. This becomes a critique of two claims:
Traditional philosophy
- Truth itself could be grasped by man through his intellect.
- Critique: Man does not grasp truth absolutely but is in always in the level of meaning or
interpretation, always groping, and never gets to an absolute truth
- The old metaphysics is criticized on the other hand for saying that truth itself could be
grasped by man. Man does not grasp truth absolutely but is always in the level of meaning.
The old metaphysics argues from the point of view of intellect which grasps absolute truth
in itself. But to talk of being human, language is neither scientific nor metaphysical for we
are always in the level of interpretation. The consciousness, looking at the referential
object never totally grasps the meaning/truth of the object but remains in the level of
interpretation. We never get to the absolute truth; we are always groping. Amidst conflicts
and confusions, the best remedy is discourse/dialogue to reach a consensus which
eventually and constantly changes thus even pushing further the demand for it.
Scientific point of view
- says that the only way people could interact is body to body (mechanistic bodily functions
specially the senses where everything is a matter of pure physical interaction).
- This is criticized because although man is a body, he is still conscious and through the
use of signs transcends to the level of meaning.
Referential meaning in language means that we always refer to something, to an object when we
use signs. Every time we use language, we always refer to object, some situation in the world.
What is most important in language is not the referential object but the evaluation, judgment or
interpretation, the meaning.
