the fetishism of language----one interpretation

[randall patrick]

Karen L Carr from The Banalization of Nihilism



".....why was Nietzsche concerned with nihilism? What common thread runs through the fragments....one which is compatible with his thought taken as a whole? First...nihilism is almost always linked to interpretation, in one of three ways. Nihilism is used to describe 1] particular negating, life-denying interpretations of the world, such as Buddhism or Christianity; 2] the absense of any meaningful interpretation of the world; 3] the multiplicity of possible interpretations, all deemed equally false. This constant juxtaposition of nihilsim and interpretation suggests that we must understand Nietzsche's analysis of nihilsim within the context of man as homo hermeneuticus, as an organism that invariblly and necessarily interprets."



But of course this conclusion cannot exclude itself from interpretation either. We are thus stuck philosophically trying to fit its meaning somewhere between what we can know to be true about it and what we can only interpret to be true about it instead. Thus we are entangled in that age-old antinomy revolving around the relationship between truth and knowledge and language.

Fortunately, in a more recent work by philosopher Simon Blackburn---the book TRUTH---we find a passage that very effectively illustrates just how entangled [and intriguing] this relationship is when the whole point is, in fact, interpreted much more explicitly...and perspicuously:



".....suppose I believe that foxhunting is cruel and should be banned. And then I come across someone [Genghis let us call him] who holds that it is not cruel, and should be allowed. We dispute, and perhaps neither of us can convince the other. Suppose now a relativist [Rosie] comes in, and mocks our conversation. 'You absolutists,' she says, 'always banging on as if there was just one truth. What you don't realize is that there is a plurality of truths. It's true for you that foxhunting should be banned---but don't forget that it's true for Genghis that it should be not..'

"How does Rosie's interpretation help? Indeed, what does it mean? 'It's true for me that hunting should be banned' just means that I believe that hunting should be banned. And the opposite thing said about Genghis just means that he believes the opposite. But we already know that; that's why we are in disagreement! Perhaps Rosie is trying to get us to see that there is no real disagreement. But how can that be so? I want people to aim at one outcome, that hunting be banned, and Genghis wants another. At most one of us can succeed, and I want it to me be me. Rosie cannot stop us from seeing each other as opponents.

"Perhaps Rosie is trying to get us to respect and tolerate each other's point of view. But why should I tolerate and respect another point of view simply on the grounds that someone else holds it?....The whole point of my posisition is that hunting should not be tolerated---it should be banned. Tolerating Genghis's point of view is too near to tolerating Genghis's hunting, which I am not going to do.

"Rosie has to avoid skating on....thin ice....Suppose she gets ruffled by what I have just written: 'Look,' she says, 'you must learn that Genghis is a human being like you, respect and toleration of his views and activities are essential. If you did not fetishize absolute truth you would see that.' I, on the other hand, say that, 'toleration of Genghis is just soggy; it is time to take a stand'. If Rosie thumps the table and says that tolerating Genghis is really good, then isn't she just like the fetishists she mocked? She has taken the fact that there are no absolute values to justify elevating toleration into an absolute value."



This scenario, of course, is what drives some philosophers nuts. They are always looking for a way around being homo hermeneuticus but there is no way in which to divise a clearly demonstrable philosophical argument that can accomplish this. Always they are stuck with professing to believe but one of many different and conflicting interpretations about how to get around interpretating what they believe is not just an interpretation.

They get ensnared in the way they use language to do this. Rosie seems to be making a rational point that both men are expressing what to each of them is the truth. But they contradict each other in a way that cannot be reconciled or resolved. They may as well be argung over whether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate. But then if you try to insist that both points of view are true relative to the assumptions that are made about foxhunting you seem to be embracing a truth that is essentially meaningless. And if you abandon the quest altogether and insist there are no absolute truths regarding the ethics of foxhunting you are de facto attempting to establish that point of view as an absolute truth.

It is in understanding this however that you begin to understand, in turn, the way we do fetishize language. We attempt to make it accommplish more than it actually can in context after context.

It then comes down to either acknowleding this [and the implications for human social interaction] or not. Most cannot, of course, but that is more a reflection of how we seem to be hard-wired psychologically to connect existential variables into patterns which are then embraced as continuities that are always seen to be true.

Then this is entangled [situated] in even larger contexts like human identity and acculturation and historical propensities and ethnological parameters. And how do we figure out the extent to which this is hard-wired into us as biological predispostitions that are rooted in the evolution of life itself?

The more you think about it the more hopelessly you get bogged down in interpretation. And there are lots of different contradictory reactions we can have to that, right? All of which are, in turn, open to interpretation.

We are stuck in this epistemological quandary, quagmire, predicament, perplexity, smarl and snake pit until the day we die. Or, of course, until we simply decide that one point of view is true. And then we live out our lives acting as though it were true.

Then for all practical purposes it becomes true. This allows us to obviate interpretation altogether. We have convinced ourselves that we know what is true. After all, millions upon millions of people do this everyday, right? So, if nothing else it seems to be a very practical way in which to live our lives.

It only becomes a "problem" ironically for the philosophers. For those who are trying to "solve" it. But not many place much value on those interpretations, right? Aside from other philosophers, of course.

rp

[PatrickHenry]

No comment. Please pardon.

[Jack]

We are stuck in this epistemological quandary, quagmire, predicament, perplexity, smarl and snake pit

Somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday I'll bet.
Just reading that makes me want to take a shower. I feel sticky all over.

[Flip Jackson]

Isherwood, you get a star for that. The thesaurus comment was deserving.

[Lilith]

epistemological

That word sounds gross.

[Jack]

And here we are, stuck in a quandary, quagmire, predicament, perplexity, smarl and snake pit of it. Oooooo...

[belverron]

I fail to see strong ties to language, and I try to make language my business.

[RickSp]

Does this address the fetishism of language or merely provide an example of its misuse? It is a reasonably good or bad example, take your pick, of what passes for scholarly discourse these days, invariably involving tortured syntax and arcane vocabulary. It is a style intended to exclude rather than communicate.

The scholarly journal "Philosophy and Literature" even sponsored a Bad Writing Contest

Here are sections from some of the winners:

"To this end, I must underline the phallicism endemic to the dialectics of penetration routinely deployed in descriptions of pictorial space and the operations of spectatorship." "The visual is essentially pornographic, which is to say that it has its end in rapt, mindless fascination; thinking about its attributes becomes an adjunct to that, if it is unwilling to betray its object; while the most austere films necessarily draw their energy from the attempt to repress their own excess (rather than from the more thankless effort to discipline the viewer)." "The lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains."

The last one is my favorite.

Hey Lilith, epistemology, the study of how we know what we know, is kewl.

[randall patrick]

Quote by: Isherwood Somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday I'll bet. Just reading that makes me want to take a shower. I feel sticky all over.

Cute.

But then it really doesn't have much to do with responding to the points being raised does it?

After all, this is a REAL philosophy venue not MSN.

rp

[randall patrick]

Quote by: RickSp Does this address the fetishism of language or merely provide an example of its misuse? It is a reasonably good or bad example, take your pick, of what passes for scholarly discourse these days, invariably involving tortured syntax and arcane vocabulary. It is a style intended to exclude rather than communicate.

If you actually imagine this post is an example of tortued syntax and arcane vocabulary I'll assume you are still in high school.

The points were clearly stated and the issues are basic to any sophisticated understanding of the relationship between epistemology, language, ethics and actual human interaction. Or is your idea of philosophy The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and/or Harry Potter?

rp

[RickSp]

Quote by: randall patrick If you actually imagine this post is an example of tortued syntax and arcane vocabulary I'll assume you are still in high school. The points were clearly stated and the issues are basic to any sophisticated understanding of the relationship between epistemology, language, ethics and actual human interaction. Or is your idea of philosophy The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and/or Harry Potter? rp

So you presume I stumbled over the big words, huh? Nope, got them all. (Let's not start comparing graduate degrees, OK?) And you are right, as compared to many "scholarly" works, this is the acme of clarity and wit. Still, it is not very well written or terribly insightful.

Stylistically the writing ...what is the word I am looking for here...sucks, yes that's it. The mix of formal or academic language (I was trying to think of the last time I used homo hermeneuticus in conversation or correspondence) with the colloquial ("right?") not to mention the run-ons (stuck in this epistemological quandary, quagmire, predicament, perplexity, smarl and snake pit) which are reminiscent of writing by lawyers - do not bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate... and so on.

The author fails in her one primary task - communicating with the reader. She never coherently addresses how language is fetishized, nor begins to address the intersection of perception and reality and the role of language in its interpretation. The language she uses, and mis-uses, interferes with her own communication, almost as if she is a performance artist using language at cross purposes to her claims and thereby demonstrating rather than arguing her point. Regrettably, it is the point that, in the end, is lost.

[belverron]

The post makes more sense to me now that it's not-three-o'clock-in-the-morning, yet my question remain the same: "What does this have to do with language?" Language is the medium, but can you substantiate your position that it is part of the problem?

Quote by: randall patrick Always they are stuck with professing to believe but one of many different and conflicting interpretations about how to get around interpretating what they believe is not just an interpretation.

If you ever post such an ill-constructed sentence again I'll do my best to hunt you down and give you a lobotomy. This type of writing automatically disqualifies you from making a point about language.

I recommend steering clear of books with titles like The Banalization of Nihilism. It doesn't even matter if it actually is crap because no one will take it seriously regardless.

[randall patrick]

RickSP:

So you presume I stumbled over the big words, huh? Nope, got them all. (Let's not start comparing graduate degrees, OK?) And you are right, as compared to many "scholarly" works, this is the acme of clarity and wit. Still, it is not very well written or terribly insightful.

Is there a philosophical equivalent of mathematical language such that we can know for certain my points were not well written nor terribly insightful? Or is this just something you know...intuitively?

Stylistically the writing ...what is the word I am looking for here...sucks, yes that's it. The mix of formal or academic language (I was trying to think of the last time I used homo hermeneuticus in conversation or correspondence) with the colloquial ("right?") not to mention the run-ons (stuck in this epistemological quandary, quagmire, predicament, perplexity, smarl and snake pit) which are reminiscent of writing by lawyers - do not bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate... and so on.

So [sigh] my career as a novelist is over even before it begins. But I think I should note the point I was raising was aimed more toward substance rather than style.

How foolish of me to go in that direction in a philosophy venue.....

The author fails in her one primary task - communicating with the reader. She never coherently addresses how language is fetishized, nor begins to address the intersection of perception and reality and the role of language in its interpretation. The language she uses, and mis-uses, interferes with her own communication, almost as if she is a performance artist using language at cross purposes to her claims and thereby demonstrating rather than arguing her point. Regrettably, it is the point that, in the end, is lost.

I quoted one paragraph from a book that is over 200 pages long. Don't you think you would have to read the whole thing first before concluding what she either does or does not fail to communicate?

And aside from points about how she and I communicate points I don't see any point at all from you directed at the existential conjectures being raised. In fact---ironically---your whole point seems to encompass the manner in which language can become a fetish by turning itself inside out and never really addressing its relationship to actual phenomenological relationships at all.

Like for instance an ethical discussion about, say, foxhunting. And the limitations of philosophical language in circumscribing a conviction about it one way or the other.


rp

[randall patrick]

Quote by: belverron The post makes more sense to me now that it's not-three-o'clock-in-the-morning, yet my question remain the same: "What does this have to do with language?" Language is the medium, but can you substantiate your position that it is part of the problem? If you ever post such an ill-constructed sentence again I'll do my best to hunt you down and give you a lobotomy. This type of writing automatically disqualifies you from making a point about language. I recommend steering clear of books with titles like The Banalization of Nihilism. It doesn't even matter if it actually is crap because no one will take it seriously regardless.

Again, the bonafide Intellectual becomes the equivalent of the fashion police. Who cares that her acting was good enough to earn the academy award. What counts is that awful outfit she chose to wear to make her acceptance speech.

The philosophical equivalent of Entertainment Tonight?

Here is my own "elliptical" take on language:

Long before the human species invented language...language that became the complex theoretical constructs that revolve around the analytical and linguistic gibberish of the epistemologists.... social interaction pretty much revolved around a "state of nature". Those who were able to exercise brute force didn't need words [much less philosophy] to relate how things were going to be. Then gradually over the centuries that changed. Authority became more structured and revolved around things like ethnology and religion. Then in Europe, with the advent of mercantilism and capitalism, this structure had to give way to an institutionalized political mechanism that revolved more around the rule of law. Those with the might [political and economy and military] still get to say what is right, of course, but all of that has now become thoroughly rationalized. We call it civilization, instead. And those who run the global economy upon which this "civilized language" rest are always concerned with world conflict if those conflicts in any way detract from a "favorable business climate". Just as they are more than willing to inflict conflict upon a people in order to create and then sustain that climate. But all of this is easier to explain away, of course, if we can construct a "philosophical language" that revolves around things like "freedom" and "democracy" and "human rights". Call imperialism and colonialism and sweat shops and economic exploitation and political repression those things instead. Language then becomes Enlightened and these words become embedded in logo-centric binary contraptions some call "universal truths".

Nothing...and I mean nothing is more basic to human survival than the means of production. And those who own it will be fundamentally involved in concocting "rules of behavior" that perpetuate their social and political and economic interests. You are, in other words, in la la land if you think the language of Enlightenment is the horse that pulls the capitalist cart. It still astounds me there are actually otherwise intelligent people who do not recognize the extent to which it is the other way around.

Now that's a digression about language you can really sink your "regulative" teeth into.


rp

[belverron]

Quote by: randall patrick Again, the bonafide Intellectual becomes the equivalent of the fashion police. Who cares that her acting was good enough to earn the academy award. What counts is that awful outfit she chose to wear to make her acceptance speech. The philosophical equivalent of Entertainment Tonight? Here is my own "elliptical" take on language: Long before the human species invented language...language that became the complex theoretical constructs that revolve around the analytical and linguistic gibberish of the epistemologists.... social interaction pretty much revolved around a "state of nature". Those who were able to exercise brute force didn't need words [much less philosophy] to relate how things were going to be. Then gradually over the centuries that changed. Authority became more structured and revolved around things like ethnology and religion. Then in Europe, with the advent of mercantilism and capitalism, this structure had to give way to an institutionalized political mechanism that revolved more around the rule of law. Those with the might [political and economy and military] still get to say what is right, of course, but all of that has now become thoroughly rationalized. We call it civilization, instead. And those who run the global economy upon which this "civilized language" rest are always concerned with world conflict if those conflicts in any way detract from a "favorable business climate". Just as they are more than willing to inflict conflict upon a people in order to create and then sustain that climate. But all of this is easier to explain away, of course, if we can construct a "philosophical language" that revolves around things like "freedom" and "democracy" and "human rights". Call imperialism and colonialism and sweat shops and economic exploitation and political repression those things instead. Language then becomes Enlightened and these words become embedded in logo-centric binary contraptions some call "universal truths". Nothing...and I mean nothing is more basic to human survival than the means of production. And those who own it will be fundamentally involved in concocting "rules of behavior" that perpetuate their social and political and economic interests. You are, in other words, in la la land if you think the language of Enlightenment is the horse that pulls the capitalist cart. It still astounds me there are actually otherwise intelligent people who do not recognize the extent to which it is the other way around. Now that's a digression about language you can really sink your "regulative" teeth into. rp

It sounds now as though you're concerned more with rhetoric than language. Is that an accurate assessment?

[Osborn F Enready]

Excellent post Randall.

I think at one time or another, the notion of what this entails strikes us all in some form or another.

Language is a tool, and it can be as used, as mis-used.

Langauge can fail, as can communication. There are times when interpretation makes the difference in communication through language working or not.

I really can't communicate "my thoughts" on this as much as I can say I am fascinated with the thread starting post, and would like to read more about the topic before I would venture an opinion, or theory.

I will however give you a big fat Kudos, on stimulating thought and provoking my trouble solving instinct as it relates to the topic.

[RickSp]

Quote by: randall patrick RickSP: Is there a philosophical equivalent of mathematical language such that we can know for certain my points were not well written nor terribly insightful? Or is this just something you know...intuitively? So [sigh] my career as a novelist is over even before it begins. But I think I should note the point I was raising was aimed more toward substance rather than style. How foolish of me to go in that direction in a philosophy venue..... I quoted one paragraph from a book that is over 200 pages long. Don't you think you would have to read the whole thing first before concluding what she either does or does not fail to communicate? And aside from points about how she and I communicate points I don't see any point at all from you directed at the existential conjectures being raised. In fact---ironically---your whole point seems to encompass the manner in which language can become a fetish by turning itself inside out and never really addressing its relationship to actual phenomenological relationships at all. Like for instance an ethical discussion about, say, foxhunting. And the limitations of philosophical language in circumscribing a conviction about it one way or the other. rp

Chuckle. Well, you are amusing. Ironic how humorless pedantry so often can be.

[randall patrick]

Quote by: belverron It sounds now as though you're concerned more with rhetoric than language. Is that an accurate assessment?

In regards to human value judgments [of which the original post revolved----how to discuss the moral parameters of foxhunting] language is always much closer to rhetoric than it will ever be to epistemology.

That, after all, is more or less the point I am making. After Blackburn proposes all his philosophical angles we are still stuck with a conflict that can only be resolved by either 1] moderation, compromise, negociation and consensus or 2] by the fellow with the most might getting to say what will or will not be construed as "the right thing to do".

For all practical purposes, in other words.

Plato and Kant [among others] never really understood that part of the human condition.


rp

[randall patrick]

Quote by: RickSp Chuckle. Well, you are amusing. Ironic how humorless pedantry so often can be.

Humor aside why don't we address Blackburn's arguments as they reflect on the maner in which some philosphers do treat language as a fetish. Analogous, say, to Marx's speculation about the fetish commodities can sometimes become when people lose sight of the social, political and economic relationships from which copmmodites are derived.

In sweatshops, for example.

rp

[rcne]

".....why was Nietzsche concerned with nihilism? .... Or, of course, until we simply decide that one point of view is true. And then we live out our lives acting as though it were true.

RP, most people don't know who Nietzsche was. (edit I'm guessing here) But I do appreciate his views on the 'superman'.

You last line states it fairly well.

The paradoxical value systems we define our reality under are best left unanalyzed. When we look to closely we see the falsehoods of our reality exposed rather than as the truths (another falsehood) we wish to accept.

Hey - this IS the philosophical thoughts section isn't it.