Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s idea that words are not really objective offers the best reality around the issues on this particular opinion.  This starts with the precise ideas associated with metaphors as well as the dialogue which happens to become essential amongst textual content together with elements in many languages. The end result in using this manner of question with regard to various areas connected to the common point of view occurs through insufficient knowledge of these procedures associated with the means and likewise through the inappropriate use of language (Chatterjee, 1985). This shows how traditional viewpoints can be applied along with standard elements of language. Thus, this research paper takes Wittgenstein’s idea that, “words are not objective” to expound on the need for subjectivity in creating room for differentiating the truth from the false ideas in the spoken words.  

The particular feasible construction related to propositions and the personality regarding reasonable inference is often labored by helping to cover their own meaning. As a result, most of us move forward successively in order to have a basic principle of data, ideas related to science, and beliefs combined with the charm. This can be a very terrible mistake as the entire meaning and foundation of language could be distorted. Any development in language should incline on the fundamental elements that make a strong language (Angelo, 1979).

In order to comprehend Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concept of key phrases simply because they are not merely goals, it is essential to recognize the problem with that which is of concern in the words we use. Within the actual part of the idea that deals with meaning, Wittgenstein is centered on situations that may have to be known by simply having a rational development of ideas. Currently there are lots of issues regarding vocabulary. In the beginning, there are issues that actually develop inside a person’s intellect after we take advantage of phrases and words as having an ultimate objective goal.  Wittgenstein refutes this fact and helps in stating that words are not indeed objective.

Subsequently, there's a problem concerning what is actually the link between recommendations and key phrases that really present factual information. The phrases need to be analyzed whether they will certainly interact with the fundamental directives in language composition. In addition, there is the specific issue of making use of text to convey the truth rather than falsehood. This particular science is among the unique sciences dealing with the particular subject-matter in the sentences in question. After that, there is the problem about the link needed in working out truth. For instance, a phrase needs to connect to a new meaning as a way to manage to be an image in a number of uses. Specifically, this last problem is a genuine sensible issue and the main one out of which Wittgenstein is concerned about. He is concerned with the use of conditions regarding proper meaning of phrases (Angelo, 1979).

An important occasion inside the philosophical globe would incline on the significance along which the associations can be useful in the search of phrases and in testing the truth of things in different vernaculars. This can be achieved by having the specific problem addressed through several sections regarding standard way of thinking and showing in the most likely situation exactly how conventional standpoint and conventional choices seem to emerge out of the lack of training in the suggestions concerning the importance of having the correct use in vernacular.

The actual creation regarding propositions and the identity related to reasonable inference are preliminary handled. We proceed successively to be able to know the perception of understanding, concepts concerning technology, ethics and the particular magic. To get a clear picture of Wittgenstein’s guide, it is important to comprehend what is the downside to that which he is actually involved in.

Within this part of his speculation, he features the meaning in literal contexts which may turn out to be of great concern while making use of the real issues which often would certainly have got to be able to become the truth through the use of reasonable choice of words. Right now there is actually a very low chance associated with junk within the perfect language. Moreover, this provides one symbol that often possesses both the specific and the different meaning as well (Angelo, 1979). Wittgenstein creates circumstances in order to acquire a practically ideal language that is not in any kind of manner related to vocabulary that is reasonably perfect.

The essential business associated with language is always to present an assertive position and at the same time help in denying some facts. Offered the actual structure from the language, the meaning in the expression is really determinate at first. This is so due to the concept of the particular component phrase that has actually been acknowledged. The fact that a particular phrase ought to declare a specific truth right now is not a guarantee that the words are certain in whatever thing they are referring to. There should be something common between the creation of such an expression and the framework of the truth. That is one of the most fundamental dissertations associated with Wittgenstein’s concept.

What must be present to keep between a person’s real phrase and the fact as suggested cannot end up being regarded as a terminology. It could, in the phraseology, only be confirmed. However, it cannot really be mentioned regarding something we might condition in our speech. Nevertheless, it must have the identical language structure.  The perfect language is one in which there is coherence and agreement and not necessarily in meaning. There should be a name for each and every easy expression, and never exactly the same name for two different good examples. The title is really an easy image in the belief it does not have components which are on their own icons. Within the reasonably perfect vocabulary, nothing that is not practically simple may have a simple picture. The look for the entire textual content will be “complex,” containing the particular symbols for the components.

While making reference to the actual “complex” we are going against the recommendations of philosophical sentence structure, although this really is inevitable from the beginning. This is the reason why Wittgenstein puts the idea that words are subjective and not really objective.  Most propositions and worries which have been talked about philosophical troubles are not really fake but also brainless. It is thus impossible to provide a solution of any kind whatsoever but only express their senselessness.

Most issues and propositions in the philosophers result in the fact that people do not know the actual thinking within their own vocabulary. They are from the identical type because the question is if or else the truly amazing is much more or even a little bit comparable when evaluated with the stunning speech.

What is essentially complex within the globe is actually finding the reality. Wittgenstein compared forecasts inside geometry to linguistics. The actual geometric determine might end up becoming forecasted inside many related methods. Each of these kinds of methods corresponds to different languages. All the same, the projective characteristics associated with the actual authentic figure remains the same. There is absolutely no issue if either of these techniques may end up being used. Moreover, the comparison between his ideas and projective assessment using the proposition explained that the truth should be common in the event that the actual proposal might be used to claim the very reality.

Within certain methods, this particular reality is obviously true. Wittgenstein begins their concept of meaning utilizing the actual assertion that “We help to make to ourselves pictures of facts.” According to Wittgenstein, an image is actually a design within the reality and also within the particular objects inside the truth since they complement the particular elements of the actual image. Simply, the image alone is in fact a truth. The fact that issues possess a certain link with almost every other is symbolized from the real truth that is inside the image its components possess with the particular link with each other. The image and the illustration have to be something similar. The image must have something in common with reality so that a person can have the ability to signify it’s subsequent manner-rightly or falsely whether it is the type of representation anticipated (Chatterjee, 1985).

Wittgenstein presents a pragmatic theory of language that is compatible in many respects with the philosophy of the pre-historic times. Ideally, language can be defined in terms not of formal structures but of use. When people speak, they are assuming a complex system of rules that give meanings to particular utterances according to the context in which they are performed. The minimal linguistic unit is therefore not the symbol, word, or sentence but the construction or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in any performance (Austin, 1975).

This understanding of language leads to the in identification of a previously overlooked component of speech which is known as illocutionary action (Alston, 2000). According to Wittgenstein, words are subjective and therefore are not merely an assertion of truth or falsehood. This means that they are not either a propositional or locutionary act. By uttering propositions, a speaker also communicates a relationship or commitment to the utterance. Illocutionary acts have been classified into five categories. First, there are the representatives that include claiming, predicting and suggesting. Another category is the directives that comprise making requests, issuing commands and making invitations. There is also another group of ‘commissives’ that in actual sense are making a commitment towards something. They include promising, threatening, and vowing (Doerge, 2006). The fourth category is called the ‘expressive’ and include words used in congratulating, thanking and welcoming. The last group comprises declarations like blessing, baptizing and firing. While all illocutionary acts are "per formative" in the sense that they function as social action, a declaration actually brings about the state of affairs it predicates (Doerge, 2006).

Austin calls an illocution "felicitous" when it successfully evokes the conditions that communicators conventionally assume for the performance of that particular speech act. In ordinary circumstances, "I hate your dress" would not constitute a compliment, and "I marry you" would be "infelicitous" if the speaker were already married. This means that intention resides not in a psychological or moral state but in the proper evocation of conventions, including a convention of sincerity (Austin, 1975). An illocutionary act properly accomplished should have what is known as “perlocutionary effects”. For instance, the act of urging will conventionally persuade; a firing will cause an employee to assume she or he has been dismissed.

Since illocutionary action relies on complex rules and assumptions about socio-cultural behavior and language use, the meaning of an illocutionary act depends less on its precise verbal form than on the conventions of its performance. Wittgenstein also assumes such a position in his argument. Take for example the statement, “That stove is hot” might be an assertion, a warning, a complaint, or even a compliment. Conversely, a warning about the stove might be expressed in any number of sentences. Therefore auditors understand language not only by way of decoding signs but also by drawing on contextual assumptions to make inferences (Doerge, 2006).

For example, the statement “I have an aspirin,” made in response to “I have a headache” can be said to constitute an offer even though no explicit words of offering have been uttered. Therefore, speech act theory thus suggests that matters of context limit the potentiality of language for ambiguity and “free play.” All the same, rules of inference assume a shared linguistic context between the speaker and listener that may or may not be operating in a given speech act. This is a particular problem in written discourse, since writing is usually detached from its origins.

Wittgenstein apparently asks readers to consider aspects of discourse that formal analysis tends to overlook. These are facts that are also contained in speech act theory. The most direct avenue speech act theory opens for literature is the study of the speech acts of textual speakers and characters.  On the other hand, while defining speech acts, there is always a difference between "ordinary circumstances" and literary ones that complicates the application of speech act theory to literature and certain other forms of discourse. In language, now notorious, speech acts are regarded as "hollow or void if said by an actor on the stage, or if introduced in a poem, or spoken in soliloquy," considering such uses to be "not serious" and "parasitic." On this basis fictional speech acts have been excluded from his enterprise.

The proponents of speech act theory one of whom seems to be Wittgenstein have suggested alterations in the theory in order to accommodate the uses of language that occurs in fictional contexts. These issues, as well as the concerns about speech act theory concepts of the subject and of the operations of language, have been generated between speech act theorists and poststructuralists.  However, because speech act theory and Derridean deconstruction (q.v.) share certain understandings, there has also been fruitful dialogue between the two theories. There has been similar dialogue between speech act theorists and social critics who share speech act theorists commitment to the contextualization of language but who object to its abstracting of both the subject and the conventions of speech from cultural and political circumstances.

Speech act theorists attempt to show that literature is itself a context rather than an independence from context. Researchers and philosophers have all argued that fictional speech acts carry a particular kind of illocutionary force and that literature, and even individual genres, constitute particular speech situations with rules and conventions of their own. For almost as long as it has existed, humanity has been on a constant mission to explain the world around us. The desire for information and need for innovation has been the fuel driving human advancement since we first started advancing. The ultimate target in any intellectual quest is an explanation. We are always looking to find why things work, how things work, or why something happened. Many disciplines revolve around this pursuit of explanation (Chatterjee, 1985). When we look at these disciplines, a rather obvious but interesting question becomes apparent: do all these disciplines deal with the same definition of explanation? Or is explanation achieved differently, depending on the context?

Wittgenstein looked at how explanation can be achieved by a historian, a scientist, and a mathematician, and discussed ways in which the same accomplishment can be realized by all these people and further highlighted on whether or not the definition explain changes depending on the context. All the same, the words used in the different scenarios are indeed subjective. With such a position, other people have been able to correct and make necessary adjustments that have led to further knowledge on the explanations that were given initially.

Looking at science, the language used plays a very important role in explaining the nature of things. All the same, certain coherence must exist so as not to conflict with other explanations provided in other disciplines. The very idea of science is to explain things we previously could not. The idea of the scientific method is to explain a theory to show it to be true. To compare this to mathematics, we must first differentiate between the two, as the line between math and science can be fairly easily questioned. For the purpose of this investigation, we will look more at the theories within science, and how they are explained, rather than the mathematical legwork that goes into proving them. When a scientific theory or idea is explained, the scientist is attempting to make one understand why the theory makes sense, and why it is better than any alternatives in the particular topic being discussed. The case the scientist makes will often rely on the sense of logic within the student he attempts to explain the theory to.

Let us assume that this particular scientist is attempting to explain the theory of evolution. In most cases, the explanation will be made with the intention of swaying one in the direction of evolution.   To do this, the scientist must show why evolution is a more reasonable theory than any other rival theory. He may give examples like the physical characteristics of certain animals that point toward evolution, or examine species that have gone extinct and why this may have been due to a lack of ability to adapt. While these are very good indicators that evolution could in fact be a likely explanation of how species reach the point they are at today, it can’t be said that this is solid proof that of evolution. For any individual to believe the theory above, they must lend themselves to their sense of logic. Thus, scientific explanation doesn’t depend on fact in all cases. It is important to understand that to explain a theory isn’t to prove it. For certain cases in science explanation may require proof, but not all (Chatterjee, 1985). When we look at mathematics and history, we will see why this characteristic helps us understand why the definition of explanation changes depending on the discipline you apply it to.

Another area of interest is in mathematics. While mathematics and science go hand in hand and are extremely important to the existence of each other, they are an excellent example of how the definition of “explain” can change. Where there is much room for logic and human perception in the explanation of sciences, mathematical explanation is much more fact based. When you explain a mathematical equation, to do an adequate job you must explain it in the correct way. There is not so much call for the use of human logic in a mathematical equation. Instead, to reach understanding of the question you must learn the method with which you will answer it. There are different ways to go about these methods, but all of them follow the same rules, carry out the same purposes, and if done correctly will return the same result.

The same goes in explaining something using a mathematical equation. If you are making a case using a mathematical equation, it is not relative. No longer are you simply trying to appeal to someone’s sense of logic to make him or her believe that this is the most reasonable conclusion to draw. For something to be adequately explained using mathematics, it must be free of error, and conform to the commonly accepted laws of mathematics. When you look at explanation within the field of mathematics and compare it to science or history (which we will discuss next), it is different in that it is absolutely defined by a series of laws that dictate what can be considered an acceptable explanation.

The third and final category we are going investigate is that of explanation in history. This is a particularly interesting discipline to look at with regards to explanation. It is also one where we see just how much the definition of explanation can change depending on its application. When we previously looked at scientists and mathematicians, explanation was generally used with regards to an idea or a problem that is being addressed in the present, for a still relevant purpose. If we solely look at these areas, it appears that explanation is basically a tool to solve humanities problems or transfer ideas to apply in everyday life. In history, this is not the case (Pears, 1996).

When a historian explains an event, for example, the way in which they explain it has absolutely no effect on that event, as it has already occurred. In science, the way that a theory is explained can have a direct effect on that theory.   A theory that is consistently poorly explained will eventually be discredited due to the fact that it is not being efficiently spread and people cannot take it seriously. In math, an error in your explanation will end in an incorrect result, meaning that the explanation becomes irrelevant. In history, however, the explanation itself can have absolutely no effect on the event itself. This makes the explanation of history unique in that the explanation is entirely separate from the subject.

History is also a case where explanation isn’t used for innovation. In mathematics or sciences, explanation exists as a tool for advancement and innovation. All of our great discoveries are dependent on the ability for the scientist to explain, if this ability doesn’t exist, the innovation can never make it out of the mind of the innovator. Explanation can be used only for explanation, as the idea of historical innovation is a ridiculous paradox. Gone is the idea of innovation, replaced by an almost opposite idea: preservation.   For these reasons, historical explanation is by far the most unique of the three areas of explanation we have looked at.

It is quite clear that the definition of explanation changes depending on the discipline you apply it too. It is a classic example of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “language games”. Wittgenstein puts forward the idea that many words are essentially defined by the context, or “language game” you apply them to. While there are definitely very close similarities in the word “explain” within the scientific and mathematical language game, when you put it into historical context, it becomes begins to serve an entirely different purpose to that particular discipline.

The language, vocal cords’ sounds come together and form words and result of the   words which is in the tremendous harmony. It is a great communication way for individuals and groups. People need language for telling and explaining their aim, purpose and desire. It   has played a major role in the sharing of thought and the development of culture. The language is a sole tool of communication, emotional sharing, understanding each other and solving the problems amongst people. If language was not in lives of the people, they would not Exchange thought and ideas. Therefore, the ideas would be gyred prisoners. Therefore the social and cultural development could not be improved. Human beings live with a thought process and consolidate this presence with the expression the thoughts and opinion. If there was no language, all ideas would be jailed in our minds. The thought never come in fleshes and bones hence such cultural developments never attained.

In old folk times, poets were traveling village to village and telling the villagers tales, legends, fables and poems. Villagers have learnt new lives and ideas and heroic epics from these folk poets. Everybody found themselves in these stories and legends and these stories are like a directive of the virtue life. People do not resolve huge problems at war squarely in a vacuum. They sit and solve these issues through talking. The word which ended war, the word which made a head cut, a word which led to the provision of a poisonous meal converted in oil and honey.  There is a lot of importance of the language and manner in this epigraph. The ancestors show how language is playing a very stunning effective and how it is a key factor on public relation with this word. Sweet language is believed to take out a snake from a hole. This is a proverb that has been used by ancestors to show the power of words. The ancestors discovered language’s irresistible power centuries ago.

Wittgenstein points out in his famous word “my language is the border of my world.”
According to Wittgenstein, if we are talking and using language beautifully, we will remove the wire border in our minds and we will discover new planets. We will get joy from its tremendous beauty. People’s world restricted with what they know. Our world will be bigger if we will learn the new things. Language and word add many things in this learning and knowing process. Suppose you were called for administration, what would be the first thing for you to do? Certainly the first thing would be reviewing language.  If the great philosophy of language is contradicted and the speaker continues even after realizing that the language is defective, the words will not express ideas properly. If the thoughts are not expressed properly, the expected order would not be rightly implemented by the society. When the duties are not implemented properly the justice will go to the wrong side and diverted to wrong ways. If the justice devout wrong ways, the society will never know what will do. This process must be followed in that order otherwise it can ruin the society unexpectedly. Because of that, language is more important than everything. The idea of objectivity in the words used in communication should thus not be taken in. Wittgenstein confirms this by saying that words are not objective.

Wittgenstein addresses the reason why the genius people influence societies since historical times. It is not a matter of being a good orator only but the choice of words in communication also that persuaded people by the language and dragged them after the philosophers.  The use of language and words should not be assertive. They must give a chance for examination and questioning about their authenticity. People should not merely go after the great philosophers and rhetoric speakers unquestioningly. Such orators who provide the collective ideas bring together and unite people in movements. They have in the past used tremendous power of language in their oratory and thus dragged the societies after them. For instance, Martin Luther started with a having a dream and improved the rights of the African Americans. If Martin Luther did not use language so efficiently, it would have been difficult for him to call for the freedom. Language and the words that he used presented a platform for the people and through it, they came after him and enabled the black get their own rights.

Almost everybody listens to music. Music plays a very significant role in people’s lives. Some of it makes all of us cry, sensitive and even have pleasure. Music generally shows how language becomes very beautiful in circumstances where it is used with instruments. Music expresses our soul’s desire and translates into influencing our feelings. We generally feel that sense on the language used in music. If people do not have the language we know, it is apparently not easy to say what would become of humanity. Language has been a very important part of creating civilizations. This has only been made possible with the subjective nature of words that have created room for more analysis in finding the truth. We have been socialized through language and without it, we are nothing.

On a different note, the opportunity associated with the proposal which represents the reality sits on the particular truth that any product is usually displayed through signs. The so-called reasonable “constants” are not displayed through indications. Nevertheless they tend to be on their very own personal present inside the real suggestion within the actual reality. The actual suggestion and the very fact should display exactly the same logical “manifold,” which cannot by itself be assertive and objective. This is because of the reason that it should maintain the aspects of truth and the image of whatever thing is being talked about. Wittgenstein maintains that, everything that is correct philosophically belongs to what can only be proven. This is so because there must be a typical similarity between a real possibility and the logical picture presented.

From such a perception highlighted above, there is nothing right that can be produced in any unfounded viewpoint and philosophy. In this sense, we are able to realize how words are and the importance of them being subjective (Pears, 1996). Every philosophical proposal should be believed as a poor sentence structure. Moreover, the best that we are able to aspire to attain through philosophical discussion is to guide individuals to observe that philosophical discussion can be a mistake. Philosophy is not one of the organic sciences. The term ‘philosophy’ ought to imply something which stands over or under, although not beside the organic sciences. The same is applicable on the philosophy of language. The item of viewpoint is the reasonable caution associated with thoughts.

Language is mainly a task and never a theory. The philosophical work primarily includes elucidations. The end result associated with language is not a number of ‘philosophical propositions. All the same, to make propositions clear, language should make clear and draw up the boundaries of speech sharply in the minds which are otherwise so to speak, opaque and blurred. Clarification would therefore need a subjective position in the words as the reader goes through any written literature or for a listener who follows a certain speech or conversation. Taking such an approach, we will make an effort of conveying an image in the universe that appears to be founded within Wittgenstein’s theory. 

The planet includes details that cannot be entirely denied. However, we are able to explain what we mean by stating that facts are the things that help us to make propositions correct, or untrue (Pears, 1996). Details could have components that are particulars or even might consist of these kinds of components. For example, “Bach is a gifted German,” includes the two details, “Bach is gifted,” and another fact that “Bach is a German.” A real possibility which has no components that are detailed is called by Wittgenstein a Sachverhalt. This is actually the identical thing he calls a good nuclear truth. A good atomic fact, even though it includes no components that are detailed, nevertheless will include elements. If we may regard “Bach as talented” as a nuclear reality we realize that it contains the ingredients “Bach” and “talent.” If the atomic reality is analyzed totally as possible, the constituents finally attained may be called “objects.”

Indeed, Language plays a very significant role in the establishment of facts and the ultimate critical thinking process.   Language consists of letters and words put together to articulate ones thoughts as thoughts cannot exist without language.   One does not have the ability to think critically without communicating with words.   Words or language help communicate ones understanding, knowledge, comprehension on how one analyzes information in order to evaluate ones thoughts. Language diversity can affect the critical thinking process in several ways.   In one scenario, if an individual speaks to another individual with a different language or different culture, then language diversity occurs.  In another scenario, diversity occurs even when both individuals speak the English language but uses different vocabulary words to express his or her thoughts. All the same, this can never be a reason as why words should be objective (Chatterjee, 1985). Despite all these differences, what is being spoken about must agree with the philosophy of language and pointing at similar truths.   

Language empowers expression of thoughts because language is how one’s message or communication is expressed to others.   Language empowers one to speak clearly when trying to get a point across.   Language also limits the expression of thoughts when words do not make sense or have any significance.   For example, an individual who lacks reading will not communicate effectively than one who reads daily.   An individual who reads more absorbs additional vocabulary to be able to communicate more clearly and effectively. The reader’s and the listener’s discretion is therefore advised. Wittgenstein seems to pound on the same philosophical idea by promoting the subjectivity of words in any language.

Language can be described and analyzed in many different ways. Vast amounts of linguistic research have been carried out at word level, sentence and phrase level and text and discourse level. The study of linguistics opens up a vast array of topics such as phonetics, prosody, word structure, syntax, text and discourse structure, word and utterance meaning, and non-verbal behavior to name but a few. More broadly speaking, linguistics is arguably a topic that comes under the umbrella theory of semiotics. Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. Semiotics involves the study not only of what we refer to as 'signs' in everyday speech, but of anything which 'stands for' something else. In a semiotic sense, signs take the appearance of words, sounds, images, gestures and objects. Through his philosophy, Wittgenstein confirms this idea and develops it, apparently defining semiotics as concerned with ‘patterned human communication in all its modes including sound, sight, touch, smell, and taste and in all contexts like in science, mathematics, history and which could also feature in things like dance, film, politics, eating, clothing (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009).

Semiotics embraces semantics, along with other traditional branches of linguistics: semantics which involves the relationship of signs to what they stand for; syntactics (or syntax) which deals with the formal or structural relations between signs; and pragmatics which examines the relation of signs to interpreters. In other words, pragmatics can be seen to involve how speakers use language in contextualized social interactions – how they do things with words, whereas semantics invites a focus on meaning and truth conditions without so much regard to communication and context (Pears, 1996).

Wittgenstein introduces us into a philosophy that seems to emphasize that speech is ‘time-bound, dynamic, transient’. Thus, speech takes place in real time. It is continuous and yet as Wittgenstein highlights, speech happens to disappear immediately and so must be understood or remembered in real time. Speech is usually accompanied by ‘hesitations, errors, pauses, false starts and redundancy’. In other words, spoken language often appears to be syntactically disjointed and often incorrect. These features occur in the speech of many people in various contexts. Errors, pauses, false starts and redundancy abound in many kinds of speech. Other syntactic features of spoken language are tags and tails. Tags typically consist of a string of words consisting of an auxiliary verb and a pronoun with or without not whereas tails consist of a slot available at the end of the clause in which the speaker inserts grammatical patterns that amplify, extend or reinforce what he or she is saying.

Semantics is essentially the study of meaning. This study of meaning can operate at word, sentence and text level. Semantics covers a broad range of sub-topics including synonyms, antonyms (graded opposites), collocation, lexemes etc. A semantic field is essentially a group of lexemes which inter-relate in regard to meaning. The words in a semantic field share a common semantic property (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009). Most often fields are defined by subject matter. The vague language ‘and stuff’ is typical of spoken English.

Pragmatics could be seen of as a ‘grab bag’ term used by different people to mean different things. The most accurate meaning is arguably that pragmatics is the study of everything else that is interesting about formal systems and their interpretations that isn't covered by either syntactics or semantics! Pragmatics is seen as the study of the relations among symbol systems, their interpretations, and the cognitive agents who use them, with context playing a key role. There is also another aspect of linguistics known as deixis. This is a term used in linguistic theory to subsume those features of language which refer directly to the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of the situation within which an utterance takes place, whose meaning is thus relative to that situation’. In other words, deictic words locate an utterance in relation to space, time and who is speaking. Examples of this in a group discussion would include words like ‘there’, ‘I/you’ and ‘that’. The reference of a deixis to a preceding expression is technically termed ‘anaphoric reference’.

Wittgenstein’s theory was very useful in studying language. For instance, ‘He’ and ‘I’ are examples of deixis and in that they refer back to the preceding text they are also anaphoric. The phrase ‘I am god’ means the same thing in one sense, no matter who says. However, in another sense, it means something different depending on who says meaning that if you say it, it means you are god and if I say it, it means I am god! Semantically, it means one thing; pragmatically it can mean various things. Context here is crucial. Well, Wittgenstein does not contend that we can really separate the easy or even have an empirical understanding of this. This particular analysis once again moves towards the debate that words are not merely objectives. It's a logical requirement demanded through idea, like an electron (Grayling, 1988). It isn't always thought that the complexity associated with details is actually finite even when every reality consisted of an infinite number of nuclear details so when every nuclear reality contains an infinite number associated with objects there would nonetheless be objects and atomic facts.

The actual assertion that there is a clearly complicated condition that decreases for that affirmation constituents are linked inside a particular method. This is usually the record from the truth and therefore if we provide a title for that complex fact, the actual title has meaning inside the fact in the specific proposition. The world is totally described in the event that all atomic facts are acknowledged, collectively using the fact that they are of them. The world isn't sufficiently recognized by merely identifying all the items inside it; it is crucial also to be aware of nuclear details of which these types of items tend to be ingredients. It can prove that words are not merely a goal. Given this total image of atomic particulars, each and every true proposal, however complex the theory be inferred can be well examined to find out the truth

To assess the relationship between language and diverse areas of knowledge, it is important to come to an agreement on the definition of language. Additionally, knowing the different areas of knowledge is also paramount. Language can be described as the suggestion or communication through actions, objects or conditions of ideas or feelings that are linked, being any universal ways of communication. Also, ethics, mathematics, history, art and natural sciences are some examples of the different areas of knowledge. This leads the way to the question of the way we come to the knowledge of that which we know. How do people absorb and embrace information? There are quite a number of ways of knowing things. These can be through perception, language, emotions and reason (Hayes, 1996).

There can be values, intuitions, proofs, believes, explanations, interpretations and evidences to help us know the things we either know or ought to know. It is very evident that we think based on the words we use and not in necessarily through terms of images or sound for instance. In order to argue that we know, it is important to have a definition of how we have come to know what we know. Knowledge can be acquired through four widely accepted methods: through observation and our senses, through logic and reasoning, through authority and lastly through revelation and intuition (Pears, 1996). However in order to acquire, produce and communicate knowledge we need the use of language.  

To state that language plays equal roles of importance in such opposite topics such as History and Mathematics is quite superficial. However, it is important to remember that language is essential in all forms of knowledge, as we cannot transfer our knowledge from one person to another without any sort of language or communication. Even learning sports or purely physical tasks involves language in some kind, like body language or the ability to get your point across only with actions. Body language can be defined as gestures, postures, and facial expressions by which a person manifests various physical, mental, or emotional states and communicates nonverbally with others. Isn’t it agreed that language is a form of communicating with each other? So couldn’t body language be like a sub term inside the language topic? But even in this, there has to be a consensus, and people have to agree on what specific actions mean between them, thus creating a language between them (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009).

There are arguments that Mathematics is purely a language. It is the language of technology, science and symbols. If a scientist or an engineer has an idea, it is often much easier for him/her to express the ideas in symbols or equations. Mathematics can even transcend national barriers as there are universal symbols which are understood all over the world the same. Like poets who attempt to tell a story or convey a feeling in words, pure algebra is the language of conveying an idea in as few expressions or equations as possible. In Mathematics, we learn new words or expressions through repeated exposure and context. A specialist language is used in mathematics to express abstract or physical thoughts, with that language and symbols used vitally to show knowledge in a universally understandable manner. Similarly, this language is extended to other physical sciences like Chemistry, Physics and Biology with additional symbols to represent other concepts.

Nevertheless, some experts defend the theory that mathematicians created their own symbolic language, and that this can be taught and passed forward with the unique use of   these symbols or equations, and that the formal language is not used. However, don’t we think in terms of words and language? Even though it can be argued that language have different levels of importance in different areas of knowledge, it is clear that knowing how to speak and write well is essential to everything we do in our lives. The level of competence in each language is important if academic activities are considered.

Comparing bilingual students to students that speak only one language, research confirms the value of learning and knowing well at least two languages. Bilingual students competent in two languages scored significantly higher on two different types of mathematical tests compared to students that had low competence in their language or languages. Further, there was some indication that bilingual students competent in both languages performed better than monolingual students, even though the monolingual students. Such results were seen as support for government policy of using students' original languages in school. The use of the student’s original language may also open the way for easier access and understanding to traditional mathematical concepts and equations.

On the other hand, there is a visual art. Experts are not sure if it is knowledge or a language that it represents, but one thing it does do is make a record of the time - technology, social behaviors, environments, that often visually shows and conveys an idea of the time period. So that we can express what we feel when we see an artwork, we have to use language or to say what we think or to write an article assessing the piece any piece of work. By looking at paintings and sculptures from long time ago, it is easy to learn a lot about society and how it developed to what we are nowadays, (like the understanding of architecture, understanding of materials, family structures, etc). This can help us understand historical events which and give evidence for theories or lessons learned from our mistakes of the past (Hayes, 1996).

Knowledge is useless without having a language in which to communicate that knowledge and pass it on to our next generations (Austin, 1975). So consequently, no matter in what area we are, there is always the need to pass on information and the main way in which humans can pass on knowledge is through knowledge, either symbolic, written or spoken form. Pushing even further, inside a society, for example, the constitution has to be written in words, consequently in a language. Society requests certain behaviors and all of us have rules in which to follow that would be hard to understand or pass forward if it was not for the use of language. Also, language is fundamental in the assessment of the candidates to universities as it is requested for the students to write essays and answer some questions (Austin, 1975).

In the ethics issue, language is almost as important as the ethics itself and the rules and stereotypes given by every society.   Whatever we think is in terms of language and whatever area we work on there will be the need of an explanation using language. For example, an architect or an engineer can do a project only with symbols, but it has to be shown to the clients using drawings and words to facilitate the understanding of any project. If you are a lawyer for example, you would find yourself lost in the middle of immense books and assessments all written in formal language. No matter what we do, to know how to articulate in a language is always an advantage.

I have a feeling that language is particularly important for all other areas of development and understanding but it is equally important to realize that language is not always spoken but can be in the form of signs and gestures, such as sign language and body language. It is vital that we encourage a language rich environment by providing opportunities for people to communicate as this will support and help people to develop to their full potential and also to develop positive listening and comprehensive skills. This means more than just hearing sounds, it is being able to understand and interpret them too. Language is any method, spoken, written, or signed, of conveying information from one person to another (Grayling, 1988).

Language, spoken or written, is our mainly means of communication. It is transmitted through learning and is a part of our culture. Until what scientists have discovered so far, only humans can speak. A gift and a talent that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, and brings us together with each other. No other animal, make use of such complex means of communication. (Even though primate animals like apes and monkeys make use of a natural system of communication, called “call system”, consisting of limited number of vocal sounds highly dependable on the environment). For us human beings, we have this magical trait of being able to communicate, understand and approximate with each other. It would be hard to imagine the world and our relationships without the use of language, and this is something we should value and always invest on enlarging and increasing our vocabularies. That is why Wittgenstein’s philosophical theory is important in ensuring that words are subjected to scrutiny until a sound meaning is established.

With the use of words, we can feel confident concerning some things even though people cannot know everything with absolute certainty. While making a choice of words, people should fast accept that they are ignorant before they attain a full understanding of the truth. Accepting that we know little is a recipe to enquiring more concerning that which is not known. This would thus lead to the achievement of knowledge. The philosophy of language must therefore be maintained across all forms of communication so that the fundamental truths are not destroyed. Any new developments in language must have a proven kind of truth upon which people can lay their trust (Grayling, 1988).

The philosophy of language should therefore be subjective in the formulations of words based on syntax. As provided in this area of philosophy, language deals with the fact that language isn’t a series of words placed together by chance. Rather words follow a certain order and this order is the result of rules. Language is a system of communication that is governed by rules. These rules need to be kept to the latter in order to make sense with the previously established rules in language. As earlier aforementioned, semantics must also form a very important aspect in the subjective nature of words. It is important to observe linguistic meaning and how this linguistic meaning is related or connected to the world. The puzzle is how language (sounds with meanings) links up with the world or reality. The importance of this question can be seen in the way that when a sentence describes the way the world is (for e.g. the sentence “the sun is shining” corresponds to the sun shining in the world) we say that the sentence is true. This theory is called the correspondence or picture theory of truth.

Pragmatics is equally as important as they involve the study of the pragmatic aspect of language. This is basically the study of the communicative aspect of language. Here, it is noted that language consists not only of descriptive statements but also of ‘performative’ sentence. In other words, with language in saying something we are also doing something: when say ‘I do’ in a church I am not only talking but also doing something, namely getting married. The study of the poetics of language also forms an important feature in this analysis. It is basically the essential study of the use of language in other areas of human life. In this section, it is important to study the language of art (literature and in particular, the theater) the language of ethics (is lying ever justified?) and the language of religion (is it possible to talk meaningfully about God?).

Consequently, everything that is concerned inside the very concept of the actual expressiveness of language must stay in apt of becoming expressed within vocabulary, and is, consequently, inexpressible inside a totally precise perception. This particular inexpressible according to Wittgenstein, consists of the entire logic and the importance of philosophy. The correct technique of teaching philosophy, according to Wittgenstein could be to restrain oneself in order to make propositions in the sciences, mentioned with all of possible lucidity and exactness and thereby leaving philosophical statements towards the student, and showing to him or her, whenever he made all of them, they are meaningless (Hayes, 1996).

It is correct that the destiny of Socrates may befall a man that tried this process associated with education. However, we are not to be discouraged with that fear, whether it is the only right method. It is not this particular idea that triggers some hesitation in accepting Wittgenstein’s theory regardless of the potent quarrels that he provides to its assistance. What results in doubt is always the tendency of accepting everything unquestionably. Wittgenstein manages to say that an excellent provision concerning what cannot be stated and, therefore suggesting to the actual skeptical readers which perhaps there might be a few loophole through a structure of dialects, or through another exit. The whole topic of ethics, for example, lies through Wittgenstein inside the magical, inexpressible area. Nonetheless he's able to present his moral sights (Hayes, 1996). Their defense could be what he calls the magical might be shown, even though it can not be mentioned. It might turn out that this defense is enough, but, in my view, I confess that it leaves me personally having a particular feeling associated with rational soreness.

In conclusion, words are not objective. They cannot really be certain about the completeness of nature and in the context in which they are used. Language has its own philosophy which guides the correct use of words to declare truth and deny false truths. Therefore, every word that is spoken by various people is subjective. It is just an opinion and a belief that is subject to scrutiny based on what the philosophy of language provides. Drawing people to one’s self through language has got to be founded on truth that can be proven. The issue is in making a lasting impact; otherwise, words that are not founded in language philosophical truth may die out and easily be forgotten. Therefore, we cannot be certain about the words of a speaker until we compare them with already established fundamental truths.

Order now

Related essays