Before I begin, I know this is lengthy but I encourage everyone to read it through, think about it, and then comment to me (on here or in person). This is a topic that hits close to home for me. Notice I put this at the beginning so people wouldn't get half way and decide they didn't want to read the rest and then not see how important this topic and their comments are to me :)
A quote: "Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable givens, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he goes beyond the limits of everyday concepts to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street."
I take this to mean 2 things.
1. When people use various words without thinking about their meaning/context, they don't realize the ramifications of what they're saying, as well as what they're not saying. As a result, they have a set of static words which people take to mean something, but that that "something" is no longer necessarily the same referent (intended word). When we take language as something static, we do not realize how language works. This creates the possibility for unintended statements, miscommunication, and most often confusion on both parties.
2. And so if we are to then begin thinking (being aware and open), we must now step outside and away from typical verbage. Thus, someone who thinks about (analyzes) these concepts, and describes/explains things in "not-normal" ways, is seen as weird because they have to use words outside of the normal lexicon. But when the typical lexicon is steeped with ambiguous, if not vague, meanings and connotations, it is no longer fruitful to use such words when participating in discourse.
I tend to agree with this (go figure right?), but I do feel like I have some support for this (go figure again...).
I've begun reading some Heideggar and can't help but notice that whenever he begins to think about and discuss a particular topic, he often gives about 5 different and possible definitions for that word. Once the reader works through all the options and sees how he then begins to use the word, his writing becomes much more poignant and lucid. The reader realizes that when he uses a given word, this is in no way a nilly-willy invocation; rather, it is a deliberate, methodical representation of a specific concept (I emphasize the specificity), which all the more allows the reader to become more readily available to the thought of his work. And that is how thinking begins.
A perfect example is the beginning of this blog. I took twice as many words to interpret one simple paragraph. It says something about a person's writing when they can write very little and evoke a great deal of thought. (For me, its a sign of great writing.)
Those are my thoughts, but I am seriously interested to hear what my friends and family (or perhaps all ten of you who read this) have to say on this topic. This is something that directly relates to who I am and the people who have friendships and familial ties with me, and so I would like hear what other opinions are on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hey Chris, I just started a blog myself.
ReplyDeletemockseverity.com
Wanna be link buddies? In my second post, I responded to what you wrote here:
http://mockseverity.com/2009/11/the-unwashed-masses-have-a-point/
for those of you who don't want to copy and paste the link, I wrote:
ReplyDeleteFellow philosopher in training Chris Hoover wrote about the benefits of having a large, well understood vocabulary on his blog, Living Via Cognition. I wrote out a detailed reply to his post only to lose it by naviagate away from his page. Thinking about what I wrote the first time, and re-reading his post made me think a bit deeper about what he is responding to.
First, consider the quote Chris was responding too:
“Hegel wrote in his essay “Who Thinks Abstractly?” that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable givens, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he goes beyond the limits of everyday concepts to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street.”
As this quote on Hegel points out, the philistine think less concretely than the sophisticated. The “person on the street”, who lacks a philosophers subtle conceptual understanding of the world, approaches language in a dogmatic fashion. For these people, words have strict “meanings” which are ironcally imprecise.
The title of Hegel’s essay, “Who Thinks Abstractly”, baffled me at first. His thesis is that it is the unsophisticated who think abstractly, not philosophers. At first blush, that is ridiculous. If anyone thinks abstractly, philosophers do. It is the philosopher who writes about the nature of necessity, not the philistine.
But a more charitable interpretation of “concrete” and “abstract” gets at Hegel’s point – the “person on the street” uses language in a way that requires much interpretation, while the philosopher is at his best when he writes lucid prose with a clear and definite meaning. Here, concrete means reliable rather than tangibale; abstract means indefinite rather than conceptual.
Chris analyzes the quote a bit differently than me. His two interpretaions explicate the kind of mistakes often made by the “person on the street”. I have no problem with either of them.
Second, what is motivating this discussion?
Although he approaches the discussion through the lense of Hegel and Heidegger, it seems clear to me that what is at stake here is the value of making subtle distinctions. As he points out, Heidegger and many philosophers like him spend huge amounts of time distinguishing between the different possible interpretations of any concept discussed. The quote about Hegel’s essay “Who Thinks Abstractly” provides us with good reason for doing such work when thinking about the world.
Despite the fact that I agree with Chris, there is a point of view being ignored here. From a pratical standpoint, many people get pissed off at philosophers when they make fine distinctions. People sometimes catagorize philosophy majors as arrogant or a bunch of smart-asses, and this isn’t mere envy. People who are stuck in pratical concerns day in and day out are not pleased when philosophers start questioning the meaning behind there job, or when they try to understand the exact nature of their work.
When a philosopher responds to what is typically taken as a straight-forward question with a fivefold distinction, normal people will get hostile. Although Hegel has a point when he says the unsophisticated don’t fully know what they mean, ordinary people can easily retort that philosophers do not know anything at all. And if the topic of discussion is typical day to day stuff, they have a point.
I am much more Hegel than Philistine. I’m more likely to piss people off with fivefold distinctions than say something I don’t fully understand. But those who do get pissed off sometimes do have a point – it isn’t always time for philosohpy.
I appreciate a great word choice and precise language (as a software programmer, ambiguity is unacceptable), but in real life we're pretty good at getting by with "good enough". Words are ambiguous and have multiple meanings, but how often do we actually get in trouble because of it? Normally "You know what I meant!" is right.
ReplyDeleteAll the best philosophers eventually come to this realization, and that is when real philosophizing begins. I fully realized the value of this from reading Crispin Wright who got it from Dummett who got it from the mathematical intuitionists. The best way to do a philosophical analysis of any topic X is to begin saying, "let's explore the different things people could mean by X".
ReplyDeleteNow that I am no longer frustrated with my computer....
ReplyDeleteThis is actually something I've thought about a lot. Similar to you, I believe that a truly talented writer has the ability to write simply and provoke their readers to form their own conclusion. However, in most cases, writers tend to use "extravagant" language. Likewise, I find that even in simple conversation people do the same. You said, "This creates the possibility for unintended statements, miscommunication, and most often confusion on both parties," it makes me wonder, why do people feel the need to flaunt their extensive vocabulary? Is it that this is a way to prove superiority, because people in general associate intellegence with word choice? It's interesting, because I find myself doing so, but I agree that the best kind of communication is simple, with no way to confuse the real message. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone just said and wrote exactly what they ment.