DOCSLIB.ORG

Wittgenstein, Winch and the Social Foundation of Meaning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wittgenstein, Winch and the Social Foundation of Meaning Wittgenstein, Winch and the Social Foundation of Meaning Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Viennese Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein revolutionized 20th c. philosophy of Language with two groundbreaking books: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations. In the latter, he carefully considers the way we acquire and use language and draws a number of conclusions about how we analyze meaning. First, Wittgenstein insisted that words do not derive their meaning from what they refer to but rather from how they are used. He rejects the “referential theory of meaning” and offers instead a “meaning is use” theory of meaning. When we observe the way language is used, what we see are not people simply offering propositions about reality but rather “language games.” Language is part of an activity that gives context to the things said and so provides a foundation for meaning. He also refers to our use of language as a “form of life.” This captures the idea that what we believe, how we behave etc. are captured in and to some extent influenced by our language. Wittgenstein wrote in somewhat cryptic fashion. Consider his example of the Beetle: ¶293 Suppose everyone had a box with something in it; we call it a “beetle,” No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. But suppose the word “beetle” had a use in these people’s language? If so, it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. No one can ‘divide through’ by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is. That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of ‘object and designation’ the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant. (Philosophical Investigations, p.100, 1953) Peter Winch (1926-1997) British Philosopher and Social Scientist Peter Winch also wrote a groundbreaking book called The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy in which he drew on the ideas of Wittgenstein and contemplated their implications for social science. Winch suggested that, if meaning is constituted socially, in the way Wittgenstein suggested, then social science must be centrally concerned with the analysis of meanings (in order to understand society). Questions about society focus not on empirical evidence but on conceptual analysis. As such, social science cannot be understood on the model of natural science. To give an account of the meaning of a word is to describe how it is used; and to describe how it is used is to describe the social intercourse into which it enters. If social relations between men exist only in and through their ideas, then, since the relations between ideas are internal relations, social relations must be a species of internal relations too. (Idea of a Social Science, p.123, 1958) For Winch, what the social scientist must understand is what it means to “go on in the same way” in the use of concepts in a society. He also speaks of the necessity of coming to understand what it means to “follow a rule” (vaguely defined) within a social context. Since these are essentially social relations, meaning itself is the product of social construction. Since we act according to meanings (concepts), understanding society is only possible by understanding the language of the group under study. Social Science is basically cross-cultural linguistics or ethnography. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Fideism Through the Lens of Wittgenstein's Engineering Outlook
    University of Dayton eCommons Religious Studies Faculty Publications Department of Religious Studies 2012 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad Kallenberg University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons eCommons Citation Kallenberg, Brad, "Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook" (2012). Religious Studies Faculty Publications. 82. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub/82 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Note: This is the accepted manuscript for the following article: Kallenberg, Brad J. “Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71, no. 1 (2012): 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11153-011-9327-0 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad J. Kallenberg University of Dayton, 2011 In an otherwise superbly edited compilation of student notes from Wittgenstein’s 1939 Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cora Diamond makes an false step that reveals to us our own tendencies to misread Wittgenstein. The student notes she collated attributed the following remark to a student named Watson: “The point is that these [data] tables do not by themselves determine that one builds the bridge in this way: only the tables together with certain scientific theory determine that.”1 But Diamond thinks this a mistake, presuming instead to change the manuscript and put these words into the mouth of Wittgenstein.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Language
    01:615:201 Introduction to Linguistic Theory Adam Szczegielniak The Meaning of Language Copyright in part: Cengage learning The Meaning of Language • When you know a language you know: • When a word is meaningful or meaningless, when a word has two meanings, when two words have the same meaning, and what words refer to (in the real world or imagination) • When a sentence is meaningful or meaningless, when a sentence has two meanings, when two sentences have the same meaning, and whether a sentence is true or false (the truth conditions of the sentence) • Semantics is the study of the meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences – Lexical semantics: the meaning of words and the relationships among words – Phrasal or sentential semantics: the meaning of syntactic units larger than one word Truth • Compositional semantics: formulating semantic rules that build the meaning of a sentence based on the meaning of the words and how they combine – Also known as truth-conditional semantics because the speaker’ s knowledge of truth conditions is central Truth • If you know the meaning of a sentence, you can determine under what conditions it is true or false – You don’ t need to know whether or not a sentence is true or false to understand it, so knowing the meaning of a sentence means knowing under what circumstances it would be true or false • Most sentences are true or false depending on the situation – But some sentences are always true (tautologies) – And some are always false (contradictions) Entailment and Related Notions • Entailment: one sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one must be true also Jack swims beautifully.
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis on Convention
    David Lewis on Convention Ernie Lepore and Matthew Stone Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University David Lewis’s landmark Convention starts its exploration of the notion of a convention with a brilliant insight: we need a distinctive social competence to solve coordination problems. Convention, for Lewis, is the canonical form that this social competence takes when it is grounded in agents’ knowledge and experience of one another’s self-consciously flexible behavior. Lewis meant for his theory to describe a wide range of cultural devices we use to act together effectively; but he was particularly concerned in applying this notion to make sense of our knowledge of meaning. In this chapter, we give an overview of Lewis’s theory of convention, and explore its implications for linguistic theory, and especially for problems at the interface of the semantics and pragmatics of natural language. In §1, we discuss Lewis’s understanding of coordination problems, emphasizing how coordination allows for a uniform characterization of practical activity and of signaling in communication. In §2, we introduce Lewis’s account of convention and show how he uses it to make sense of the idea that a linguistic expression can come to be associated with its meaning by a convention. Lewis’s account has come in for a lot of criticism, and we close in §3 by addressing some of the key difficulties in thinking of meaning as conventional in Lewis’s sense. The critical literature on Lewis’s account of convention is much wider than we can fully survey in this chapter, and so we recommend for a discussion of convention as a more general phenomenon Rescorla (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Relations in Categories
    Relations in Categories Stefan Milius A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in Mathematics and Statistics York University Toronto, Ontario June 15, 2000 Abstract This thesis investigates relations over a category C relative to an (E; M)-factori- zation system of C. In order to establish the 2-category Rel(C) of relations over C in the first part we discuss sufficient conditions for the associativity of horizontal composition of relations, and we investigate special classes of morphisms in Rel(C). Attention is particularly devoted to the notion of mapping as defined by Lawvere. We give a significantly simplified proof for the main result of Pavlovi´c,namely that C Map(Rel(C)) if and only if E RegEpi(C). This part also contains a proof' that the category Map(Rel(C))⊆ is finitely complete, and we present the results obtained by Kelly, some of them generalized, i. e., without the restrictive assumption that M Mono(C). The next part deals with factorization⊆ systems in Rel(C). The fact that each set-relation has a canonical image factorization is generalized and shown to yield an (E¯; M¯ )-factorization system in Rel(C) in case M Mono(C). The setting without this condition is studied, as well. We propose a⊆ weaker notion of factorization system for a 2-category, where the commutativity in the universal property of an (E; M)-factorization system is replaced by coherent 2-cells. In the last part certain limits and colimits in Rel(C) are investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • What Calvin and Wittgenstein Had Against Images
    Works Cited Green, Mitchell S., and John Williams, eds. Moore's Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality, and the First Person. Oxford: Baker, Gordon P., and P. M. S. Hacker. An Analytical Commentary Clarendon Press, 2007. on the Philosophical Investigations. 4 vols. Chicago - Oxford: Jenkins, Keith, ed. The Postmodern History Reader. London - New University of Chicago Press - Blackwell Publishers, 1980- York: Routledge, 1997. 1996. Kerr, Fergus. Theology after Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Bloor, David. Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. New York: Malcolm, Norman. Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View? Ed. with Columbia University Press, 1983. a response by Peter Winch. London: Routledge, 1993. Bonnell, Victoria E., and Lynn Avery Hunt, eds. Beyond the McGinn, Marie. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture. Philosophical Investigations. London - New York: Routledge, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. 1997. Bouwsma, O. K. Wittgenstein: Conversations, 1949-1951. Ed. J. L. McGrath, Alister. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Craft and Ronald E. Hustwit. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1986. Western Culture. Oxford - Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Battles, Ford Lewis. Trans. Institutes of the Christian Religion, by Blackwell, 1990. John Calvin. Ed. John T. McNeill. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Monk, Ray. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. The Westminster Press, 1960. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1991. Crary, Alice Marguerite, and Rupert J. Read, eds. The New Morse, Christopher. "Raising God's Eyebrows: Some Further Wittgenstein. London - New York: Routledge, 2000. Thoughts on the Concept of the analogia fidei." Union Crary, Alice Marguerite. "Wittgenstein's Philosophy in Relation to Seminary Quarterly Review, 37 (1981-1982): 39-49.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis on Conventions and Meaning
    Lewis on conventions and meaning phil 93914 Jeff Speaks April 3, 2008 Lewis (1975) takes the conventions in terms of which meaning can be analyzed to be conventions of truthfulness and trust in a language. His account may be adapted to state an analysis of a sentence having a given meaning in a population as follows: x means p in a population G≡df (1a) ordinarily, if a member of G utters x, the speaker believes p, (1b) ordinarily, if a member of G hears an utterance of x, he comes to believe p, unless he already believed this, (2) members of G believe that (1a) and (1b) are true, (3) the expectation that (1a) and (1b) will continue to be true gives members of G a good reason to continue to utter x only if they believe p, and to expect the same of other members of G, (4) there is among the members of G a general preference for people to continue to conform to regularities (1a) and (1b) (5) there is an alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b) which is such that its being generally conformed to by some members of G would give other speakers reason to conform to it (6) all of these facts are mutually known by members of G Some objections: • Clause (5) should be dropped, because, as Burge (1975) argued, this clause makes Lewis's conditions on linguistic meaning too strong. Burge pointed out that (5) need not be mutually known by speakers for them to speak a meaningful language. Consider, for example, the case in which speakers believe that there is no possible language other than their own, and hence that there is no alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b).
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over ›Wittgensteinian Fideism‹ and Phillips’ Contemplative Philosophy of Religion
    The Debate over ›Wittgensteinian Fideism‹ and Phillips’ Contemplative Philosophy of Religion Thomas D. Carroll Sometimes in a philosophical dispute, conflicting parties debate the truth or falsity of a given proposition. ›A fetus is a person‹, ›The meaning of the truth predicate is captured by the disquotational schema‹, and ›Con- sciousness is an emergent property of complex neural systems‹, are some examples of propositions whose truth and relative warrant are debated in recent philosophical literature. While many philosophical disputes follow this model, not all do. After all, in some philosophical disputes, no uncon- troversial framing of the terms of disagreement is available. Indeed, in some such disputes, it is not the truth of or warrant for a proposition that is be- ing debated, but instead the very words used to describe the disagreement itself. When surveying the scholarly literature over Wittgensteinian fideism, it is easy to get the sense that the principal interlocutors, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips, talk past one another, but finding the right words for apprais- ing the distance between the two voices is difficult. In this paper, I seek to appreciate this intellectual distance through an exploration of the varying philosophical aims of Nielsen and Phillips, of the different intellectual im- peratives that guide their respective conceptions of philosophical practice. In so doing, I seek to show how a contemplative mode in philosophy may be used to appraise a philosophical dispute and the terms of disagreement. In this case, a contemplative approach to understanding the dispute would frame Nielsen’s and Phillips’ contributions against the backdrop of the ends they conceive philosophy to have.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): Mathematician, Logician, and Philosopher
    Louis deRosset { Spring 2019 Russell: The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He's one of the founders of analytic philosophy. \On Denoting" is a founding document of analytic philosophy. It is a paradigm of philosophical analysis. An analysis of a concept/phenomenon c: a recipe for eliminating c-vocabulary from our theories which still captures all of the facts the c-vocabulary targets. FOR EXAMPLE: \The Name View Analysis of Identity." 2. Russell's target: Denoting Phrases By a \denoting phrase" I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. (479) Includes: • universals: \all F 's" (\each"/\every") • existentials: \some F " (\at least one") • indefinite descriptions: \an F " • definite descriptions: \the F " Later additions: • negative existentials: \no F 's" (480) • Genitives: \my F " (\your"/\their"/\Joe's"/etc.) (484) • Empty Proper Names: \Apollo", \Hamlet", etc. (491) Russell proposes to analyze denoting phrases. 3. Why Analyze Denoting Phrases? Russell's Project: The distinction between acquaintance and knowledge about is the distinction between the things we have presentation of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. [. ] In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character; but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are ac- quainted.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Relational Ontology Wesley J
    An Introduction to Relational Ontology Wesley J. Wildman, Boston University, May 15, 2006 There is a lot of talk these days about relational ontology. It appears in theology, philosophy, psychology, political theory, educational theory, and even information science. The basic contention of a relational ontology is simply that the relations between entities are ontologically more fundamental than the entities themselves. This contrasts with substantivist ontology in which entities are ontologically primary and relations ontologically derivative. Unfortunately, there is persistent confusion in almost all literature about relational ontology because the key idea of relation remains unclear. Once we know what relations are, and indeed what entities are, we can responsibly decide what we must mean, or what we can meaningfully intend to mean, by the phrase “relational ontology.” Why Do Philosophers Puzzle over Relations? Relations are an everyday part of life that most people take for granted. We are related to other people and to the world around us, to our political leaders and our economic systems, to our children and to ourselves. There are logical, emotional, physical, mechanical, technological, cultural, moral, sexual, aesthetic, logical, and imaginary relations, to name a few. There is no particular problem with any of this for most people. Philosophers have been perpetually puzzled about relations, however, and they have tried to understand them theoretically and systematically. Convincing philosophical theories of relations have proved extraordinarily difficult to construct for several reasons. First, the sheer variety of relations seems to make the category of “relation” intractable. Philosophers have often tried to use simple cases as guides to more complex situations but how precisely can this method work in the case of relations? Which relations are simple or basic, and which complex or derivative? If we suppose that the simplest relations are those analyzable in physics, we come across a second problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues Author(S): R
    Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues Author(s): R. E. Allen Source: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 69, No. 2, (Apr., 1960), pp. 147-164 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183501 Accessed: 10/08/2008 14:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org PARTICIPATION AND PREDICATION IN PLATO'S MIDDLE DIALOGUES* I PROPOSE in this paper to examine three closely related issues in the interpretation of Plato's middle dialogues: the nature of Forms, of participation, and of predication.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Belief, Language Games and Postmodern Narratives
    37 Al-Hikmat Volume 27 (2007), pp. 37-58 RELIGIOUS BELIEF, LANGUAGE GAMES AND POSTMODERN NARRATIVES MUHAMMAD IQBĀL AFAQI* Abstract. This paper is centred on the question of objectivity of religious truth-claims in the Wittgensteinian perspective and explains how the evidentialist standard model of rationality leads us nowhere except putting us in a flyglass wherein like distraught flies we hopelessly flutter and flutter without finding the way out. This flyglass was manufactured by the Cartesian epistemology which demanded proofs in order to establish the cognitive validity of a truth-claim. Wittgenstein rejects this standpoint as wholly mistaken and misguided. There is no objectively neutral place from which the philosopher can have a critical look on a particular mode of discourse. The question of true/false depends on forms of life and language games. This line of argument has been followed by D. Z. Phillips, Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm. They also denounced the claim that there must be a common paradigm of rationality for all modes of discourse. Indeed, there are many difficulties in Wittgensteinian criteriology. But it is a fact that evidentialism fails to take account of diversity in modes of discourse. Likewise, the scientism suffers the fallacies of generalization and exclusivism. Rationalist ontology fallaciously promotes the idea of transcendental truth which Prof. Stuhar rejects as a system of delusion. Taking lead from Wittgensteinianism, postmodernism lays emphasis on equality of different cluster of meaning and affirms that there is no objective point of view that gives us access to a global truth. Hence, what is temporary, immanent and historically particular is accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions PHIL 83104 September 5, 2011 1. Denoting phrases and names ...........................................................................................1 2. Russell’s theory of denoting phrases ................................................................................3 2.1. Propositions and propositional functions 2.2. Indefinite descriptions 2.3. Definite descriptions 3. The three puzzles of ‘On denoting’ ..................................................................................7 3.1. The substitution of identicals 3.2. The law of the excluded middle 3.3. The problem of negative existentials 4. Objections to Russell’s theory .......................................................................................11 4.1. Incomplete definite descriptions 4.2. Referential uses of definite descriptions 4.3. Other uses of ‘the’: generics 4.4. The contrast between descriptions and names [The main reading I gave you was Russell’s 1919 paper, “Descriptions,” which is in some ways clearer than his classic exposition of the theory of descriptions, which was in his 1905 paper “On Denoting.” The latter is one of the optional readings on the web site, and I reference it below sometimes as well.] 1. DENOTING PHRASES AND NAMES Russell defines the class of denoting phrases as follows: “By ‘denoting phrase’ I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present king of England, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the sun around the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form.” (‘On Denoting’, 479) Russell’s aim in this article is to explain how expressions like this work — what they contribute to the meanings of sentences containing them.
    [Show full text]