Look up the short, interesting book, WITTGENSTEIN'S POKER, some time. In a message dated 1/15/13 4:20:39 PM, [email protected] writes:
> I'm having trouble believing a battlefield conversation on polite > linguistic > problems. > > My expectation would be that a battlefield conversation would be limited > to very > short practical sentences or to outbursts of rage, fear, etc. Or wheezy > silence. But I've never been on a battlefield shooting or being shot at. > > wc > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 2:30:57 PM > Subject: Re: Art is money > > Talk-sounds is stunningly ugly. > Kate Sullivan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 1:29 pm > Subject: Re: Art is money > > I wrote: > > > > > The use of the word 'art' has metastisized so wildly, so > uncontrolledly, > > > because though the human mind was clever enough to devise language, > it > > has > > not > > > been nearly clever enough to make its use foolproof. > > > language is still in a primitive stage comparable to riflery soon > after > > its > > > invention, when the projectiles were spherical metal balls > > > Michael responded: > > > > Please, Tom, that's a ludicrous bit of hyperbole. Language is one of > the > > oldest human accomplishments, perhaps the very oldest communal > > accomplishment--how could societies have arisen without communication. > > Language isn't *primitive*, either chronologically or notionally: it's > > geometrically more complex than almost every other human production. > > Everything humans have made or invented have, typically, has only a > few > > capabilities. Language is infinitely malleable, as the first sentence > of > > this > > excerpt acknowledges. > > > I stand by my allegation of "primitive". About two-thirds of the way > through the nineteenth century, "philosophy of language" had not been > invented > yet. Writers then (rightfully) gloried in what language could do. > Notice that > I said, "For some purposes". If you'd gone to the philosophers in the > late > 19th and told them that, for the next 125 years, philosophy would be > bent > over language trying to straighten it out, you might have been told, > "that's a > ludicrous bit of hyperbole." Then came Frege, Russell, Whitehead, > Tarski, > Strawson, Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Quine, Grice, Davidson, > Donnellan, > Putnam, Kripke... > > In something I'm working on, I found myself writing: > > BREN > Oh, our talk-sounds often work well enough -- in the kitchen, on a ball > field or a battlefield. Because we all link simple sounds like Milk! > Run! > Shoot! with similar raw sensations -- > KIT > -- But we're not in a kitchen right now -- > BREN > -- No, we're on a battlefield -- > KIT > -- I'm saying listen to us! We're understanding each other! > BREN > We are? ...With philosophy, politics, religion -- when we hear their > psychedelic sounds -- 'freedom', 'art', 'salvation', 'understand', > 'meaning' > -- we > all conjure notions, but they're abstract, fuzzy, and, most important, > various. > > > If anything, language -- as a philosophical tool in the mire of Saul > Kripke's modal logic -- is perhaps more bogged down now than it was > fifty > years > ago. I'd love to see where it will be (for philosophy) a hundred > years from > now.
