the language of postmodernism

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

The Limits of Language?
Ronin Winter
On the other hand [unlike other animal communication], humans are able to convey a variety of purposes and are able to symbolise elements of the world with words and language. This symbolism is brought upon by signs; Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, believed that language consisted of a signifier (symbol) and a signified (concept).

Thus the word “tree” symbolises the actual object in reality that is the tree, and in this symbol there consists the signifier: how the word is phrased or spoken which is different across various languages and the actual concept (signified) which represents the idea of a tree is.
On the other hand, in regard to trees, an actual object out in the world we live in, there is a ton of objective information that we can fall back on pertaining to whatever language we choose and however the language we do choose is explored...semiotically?

Signifiers can generally come to the very same conclusions about whatever trees are being signified.

That is, until the discussion configures into a debate between the tree huggers and the lumber industry. What then is of significance? One side side deconstructing the other side based on which language deemed to be the most appropriate?
In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein put forth a treatise on the exploration of the limits of language and thought. In this he developed his picture theory of language which stated that language paints a picture of reality. Propositions then represent reality in a certain way and this can either be true or false; for example the proposition that “there is a dog in the garden” is true if in fact there actually is a dog in the garden and is false if it is not the case.
First trees. Now dogs.

How about this: Jim holds dog-fighting contests in his back yard out near the garden next to the oak tree where the dogs, trained to be savage beasts, battle viciously to the death. A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:49 am ... A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
Belinda
Posts: 7351
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:35 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:49 am ... A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
By "unfolds" do you mean language does not record meanings but makes meanings?
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:51 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:35 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:49 am ... A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
By "unfolds" do you mean language does not record meanings but makes meanings?
I am merely saying that if language only captures pictures of reality, but not movies - then it's leaving much unsaid.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a movie is worth even more.
Belinda
Posts: 7351
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:59 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:51 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:35 am
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
By "unfolds" do you mean language does not record meanings but makes meanings?
I am merely saying that if language only captures pictures of reality, but not movies - then it's leaving much unsaid.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a movie is worth even more.
Are you comparing still shots with moving pictures?

If so, language has much in common with the crystallising effect of the still shot. The still shot is less like reality than the movie because the still shot does not show a causal narrative as most movies do. However, let's remember that a movie narrative is selective of what causal connections the writer, director, and actor intend to purvey.
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:37 pm Are you comparing still shots with moving pictures?

If so, language has much in common with the crystallising effect of the still shot. The still shot is less like reality than the movie because the still shot does not show a causal narrative as most movies do. However, let's remember that a movie narrative is selective of what causal connections the writer, director, and actor intend to purvey.
Just as much as one can be selective with the causal chains, one can also be selective with their still frames.

The human mind will fill in the blanks given the propper suggestion.

In both cases language can be used to deceive, or inform; so my point is strictly pragmatic. Speaking in movies communicates more information than speaking in pictures.
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:35 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:49 am ... A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
I'll promise not to ask you to explain what that means if you'll promise not to tell me.

Deal?
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 5:27 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:35 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:49 am ... A "picture theory of language" here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
The picture-theory of language is necessarily insufficient in a world which unfolds like a movie
I'll promise not to ask you to explain what that means if you'll promise not to tell me.

Deal?
I promise not to explain it. For it requires no explanation.
Belinda
Posts: 7351
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:39 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:37 pm Are you comparing still shots with moving pictures?

If so, language has much in common with the crystallising effect of the still shot. The still shot is less like reality than the movie because the still shot does not show a causal narrative as most movies do. However, let's remember that a movie narrative is selective of what causal connections the writer, director, and actor intend to purvey.
Just as much as one can be selective with the causal chains, one can also be selective with their still frames.

The human mind will fill in the blanks given the propper suggestion.

In both cases language can be used to deceive, or inform; so my point is strictly pragmatic. Speaking in movies communicates more information than speaking in pictures.
I agree. However language, being sequentially performative , can't transmit a Gestalt information. An expert speaker describing and explaining a map or a graph can't transmit all the relationships without a feat of memory on the part of the receiver. But the map or the graph can.
Walker
Posts: 11773
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Walker »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:59 am
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a movie is worth even more.
However, memories are not moving narratives. They're more like frozen snapshots that persist: a smile, a glance, a fragrance, a place, a moment.

Those snapshots, daytime memories, are usually good so that folks can keep functioning and not melt down into a puddle. Much as pain gets forgotten, bad memories get minimized under a sweet glaze of nostalgia in order to keep moving about and functioning.

Uncontrollable, choiceless nightmares are more like movies because unlike the waking snapshot-memories, the next scene of the moving dream must be discovered rather than chosen, or remembered.
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

The Limits of Language?
Ronin Winter
"A picture agrees with reality or fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true or false. In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality.” Ludwig Wittgenstein
Okay, here are some pictures: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... =615&dpr=1

Pictures that depict the war in Ukraine. So, reality -- the truth -- from the perspective of Vladimir Putin or from the perspective of Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

Your assessment of what the pictures are telling us about this conflict or mine? Or the perspective of others regarding the reality -- the truth -- there?

Or how about pictures of this guy: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... =615&dpr=1

Your reaction/reality/truth or mine?
Language is built on propositions. Reality contains facts. Propositions symbolise these facts and if they contain no truth or falsity, then they are meaningless. Wittgenstein believed that nothing correct can be said in philosophy. Philosophical propositions do not picture or coincide with reality.
What proposition containing what facts about the war in Ukraine or about Trump and MAGA?

And how exactly are philosophers not correct regarding the language they use in distinguishing truth and falsity in the either/or world?

Yeah, if propositions are defined as "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion" then I agree that the tools of philosophy seem to confront limitations in a No God world. But to then propose further that "whereof one cannot speak [objectively], thereof one must be silent" is completely out of sync with the reality of human interactions. Only in isolating oneself completely from others is that relevant.

Instead, moral nihilists of my ilk propose that the "best of all possible worlds" revolves around "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in a political economy that revolves as much as possible around "democracy and the rule of law."

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:35 am Instead, moral nihilists of my ilk propose that the "best of all possible worlds" revolves around "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in a political economy that revolves as much as possible around "democracy and the rule of law."
I don't understand what a moral nihilist would negotiate for; or compromise about.

If you don't value anything then you have nothing to fight for and nothing to lose.
Post Reply