This written response was for my Philosophy class at De Anza College. In the video (posted at the bottom of the page), Bryan Magee talks to John Searle about the linguistic philosophies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, a German philosopher whose theories in mathematics, logic, and language are considered to be among the most important and controversial ideas of the 20th century. Wittgenstein’s impact on the world of philosophy is often compared to that of Immanuel Kant.
John Searle & Bryan Magee on Wittgenstein
In this youtube interview, John Searle and Bryan Magee wade into the philosophies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and examine the use of language and words. In an intimidating and linguistically complex fashion, the two men explore Wittgenstein’s efforts to synthesize language with philosophy and metaphysics, or existence. According to Wittgenstein, the only language that truly made any kind of sense was fact-speaking language. This disqualified terms that could be considered objective: words such as “good” or “failure” could not be defined by fact; Wittgenstein considered them too indeterminate. This flies in the face of the Platonic philosophers who constantly questioned “What is justice? What is right?” Instead, Wittgenstein insisted that we not ask for the meaning of any word — instead, we should ask for the use.
While Wittgenstein’s writings are considered some of the most profound philosophical work of the 20th century, there is a great paradox to be found in his philosophy of language: he himself admits that the most important things in life can not be adequately described in words. Ethics, religion, aesthetics, were all in the realm of the unsayable. It’s been said that the most important part of Tractatus, Wittgenstein’s first published book, is the part that’s not there at all. This was deeply problematic for the German philosopher on many fronts, and he set out to further explore the link between words and the creation of reality, adamant that the language of words was the fabric that, in many ways, designed and held our existence together.
Words are undoubtably symbols—nothing more, nothing less. They get their meanings by representing objects. We can no more alleviate thirst with the word “water” then we can warm ourselves in cold with the word “fire." These words are simply representative of the thing that we attach them to. Wittgenstein suggested that instead of saying that the structure of reality determines the structure of the language, it is the structure of the language that determines what we think of as reality. With this, myriad fundamental concepts are raised and addressed between John Searle and Bryan Magee. Wittgenstein’s philosophy is that there is no particular single essence or link that words have in common—only a family resemblance. It is this term of a “family resemblance” that Wittgenstein uses often in his analytic work.
Words and language are only a game, but Wittgenstein insists that we can no longer take the game for granted. There isn’t any such thing as thinking or experience as human beings, without language. Language permeates experience at every point. The task of the the philosopher, in Wittgenstein’s view, is to describe—though not justify—the description of how the language game is played.
Most of this discussion was over my head, and I feel like I understood only a small portion of what was being said. As an English major, my own fascination with words seemed to resonate with some of Wittgenstein’s points, though I must admit he seems to take words much more seriously than I do. As someone who studies Eastern philosophies and meditation, I find my understanding of many of Wittgenstein’s points to be problematic. I believe personally that he gives words more significance than they really deserve, since we as humans get to decide their level of importance. My awareness of the world is a unified cosmic consciousness that transcends words, rationality, intellect, labels, thoughts, and all notions of comprehension. But that, of course, is simply a different lens through which I view the world.
At a certain point, the analytical philosophies of Wittgenstein are themselves a kind of language that, to me, borders on incomprehensible, semantic absurdity. Maybe if I were to switch majors from English to Philosophy, I may be able to speak his idiom. However, I’m currently comfortable with my own personal evolution in my understanding of language and reality, and the connections and significance that they hold.
Nevertheless, Wittgenstein has given me plenty to think about. If only his words were easier to comprehend . . .