Philosophical and Theological Anthropology in the 21st Century – part 1

Posted By on June 2, 2019



thank you very much son for those words and I want to say how pleased and grateful I am to be here because as Simon has indicated I've been in exchange with many of the people in the department here and learnt a lot from them and we really was very very happy to accept this invitation once more to get into into a discussion and dialogue with them know what I'd like to do today is talk about the when I think if the main direction of change and I think change for the better in our understanding of philosophical anthropology anyway in Western philosophy and I'm going to do it via 2 platforms as well I want to start off talking about potent liquor because I think you take care his whole development the beginning so I think he is the trajectory of his work is very useful to start with nor to see what the problems and difficulties are philosophical anthropology havbeen and then I want to take off from his later work and extrapolate from it by talking about raising it to bring it in parallel with the theories of language that emerge at the time of the German Romantic movement in 90s and their critique of the theories of language that underlie a lot of Angra Saxon analytic philosophy you know they're very very different theories alright so let me start off first of all by looking at at the lead Karl's trajectory just to set up the situation where it comes to the point where you have to start talking about language and thinking about language before you can go on and move forward now suppose we can't be classed with a whole lot of philosophers in the mid century force like the afterwards oh I'm thinking of the The Tragically of portal Jarvan in reaction to a tendency in philosophical anthropology to borrow from cartesianism with its Judaism but it's a mechanized version of cartesianism which does away with the mind and understands the mind in terms of various natural science readings of the body the organism and so on now against that pushing against that kind of reduction you have a series of movements in the men in the 20th century of philosophy and the leaker drew on two of those one was the tradition of French reflexive philosophy going back to men to be a holland and other and other figures nabe on some other figures of French philosophy and the other was of course phenomenology in hoster and the listener was one of the very important starting points but if he car was passing the second world war in an officer prisoner of war camp a flag in East Germany he translated cosa LC daen into French by writing between the lines and did a magnificent job later published and so he started off in that the direction of that kind of reflexive philosophy into the Claro's case it's an it's already in hustlers case it's a philosophy which hopes to recover a sense of the subject as against simply what we can explain in objective terms recover a sense of the subject by taking consciousness by the subject of itself and offering a description of what experience is like so you have this privilege of phenomenological description from the first-person standpoint and that's where who Cyril starts I mean after the logo shows oh cool in that cell starts his trajectory and that's where Rico starts but very rapidly he comes to the conclusion and this is he's not alone in this but I'm just following his version he comes to the conclusion that that can't be an adequate answer to the reductive theory because in fact a great deal that is true of us as subjects as ancients is not something which is simply available to first person description in terms of first person description how I feel I might see myself thinking how I see myself grasping the world a lot that's going on in me is actually still hidden in a sense the subject the human subject is a being who acts and who suffers and then after we're retrospectively reflecting on this tries to understand what it is to be this kind of being who acts and and suffers so consequently simple description from the first-person standpoint gets you somewhere but not far enough and Beco early on that made made exactly this this point saying that we need to as it were complement phenomenology which is this description of how experience happens for us with what he calls hermeneutics hermeneutics meaning what well meaning that what we complemented with is a reading of what we do and how we suffer and the creations we bring about in history in terms of monuments and modes of language and modes of music and art etc a reading of these which can give us what we are as subjects living meanings in the world so it is an attempt to take something like a text I mean something the record of human action and achievement in history and to give a reading of its meaning you see how the term hermeneutics comes in here because originally hermeneutics which I mean you're with the origin attempts to read the Bible or sometimes read the great works of our classics in order to bring out their meaning make clear their meaning well by analogy in this in this metaphorical sense of hermeneutics the activity here is an attempt to read and make sense of the record of our action of how we suffer about things we create so on so phenomenology and hermeneutics a description of the experience from the first person has to be complemented by a heretics of human actions and he says one of the great things he says that our existence becomes really a filth on a swamp human and an adult agent by appropriating the meaning which resides first of all outside of us in the works the monuments of culture or the life of the Spirit of the mind in an objective eyes form right that's a famous quotation from the coal feeders in telling us you know where he takes them he tries to explain this this shift right so we have first reaction to this reductive thing is reductive philosophy is a phenomenological one a descriptive one in the first person and then what completes this is this attempt to read the meaning of our actions and now this is where we come to the threshold of where I thought want to take off from we care we care we ask ourselves just what it means to make such a reading and I want particularly to ask what kind of language what kind of concepts we need to make this kind of of reading and there is where recur throughout a number of extremely interesting ideas which oughta try to bring together and maybe maybe to systematically tidy up and push forward in terms of the theory of language of the German Romantic period his work on metaphors well well-known I met Jeff Aviva and his great work on time and narrative right Tom if he see three volume work which have McVie's a number of very important ideas and try to push them forward so let's look at the first first clear tempani curve to give us an idea of the language or languages we need to do this kind of hermetic work now it happened that a thing that interested him very very much was the whole issue of how we fail how we do not succeed in carrying out the best and highest sense we have of our lives we somehow don't manage to to make it and this is famous work called lung fiber fallible the fallible human is where he's one of the place he starts to work on this not very long after the war if he came back to France I'm tempted to this is the the factor he's looked trying to look at here is something at first very very generalized I don't know if you know Frances buffer his work but HP TFT you but it's rather that is the what he is trying to get at now his method to start with is to look at how human beings have tried to deal with this from the very beginning so he goes back to the earlier period he goes back to the Bible the Old Testament he goes back to the Greeks graphics and tries to bring out the language in which one can talk about these kinds of failures and here he comes up very interesting with on the concept of the symbol I mean let's give an example in giving an account of our inability to live up to what we all know we have as a possibility a word like a concept like sin can be introduced and behind this there can be various images I mean the original hamachi our image is missing the target right we understand this by another kind of activity which is very understandable in ordinary life if you're you know taking a bull an hour and trying to hit a target and you miss or the one that I want to talk about here we understand we understand sin or this kind of failure in terms of a kind of stain insu you it's got a stain or a lack of Clinton of cleanness of some kind right now why is this a symbol here well because it's we're drawing on an ordinary everyday phenomenon you know hands being dirty in order to explain something which is we're tempted to say not literally that he has something of the structure of a metaphor in this very minimal sense of the structure of a metaphor that were trying to get to one thing through another through a through B we're trying to get at this kind of failure which is sin and they and their way considered something that can put aunt Ashley I mean what the word I'm looking for is you can as it were stain us we're trying to get at that via the ordinary understandable experience of being impure physically in various ways and this is what he wants to call a symbol here you get already the first parallel tracking with the 1790s in the in the German of the great development of theories of language in Germany aw Schlegel speaks of the symbol as something external which is a way we have of expressing or getting contact with something that is in a certain sense invisible right so we have parallel use of the term symbol now what does this due to our understanding of what it is to do a successful hermeneutics right away we come up against a limitation of that because there is something inherently difficult and enigmatic about the symbol yes we're trying to get at a sort of – a sort of stain in us by the fact that we behaved terribly badly and we're getting at it through something else which is quite understandable in the everyday world but we're constantly challenged to explain well just what is it that justifies this analogy justifies this metaphor how can we unpack it further there remains something enigmatic in the use of the symbol which calls on us for further explanation and he ends that last chapter of Lum fiber where which which he comes to the conclusion and say it's the title of the last chapter as well as the last line of the last chapter the Sam ball done upon say the symbol in this sense forces us stimulates us to think think philosophically try to explain it now his view about this is that this kind of attempts to if you like in this case maybe make it theology of trying to put it in the terms of a rational discourse and we'll look at what rational means and then later on but in terms of a rational discourse is in a in a certain respect endless and if we never succeed in totally translating what we have in the symbol into the language of philosophy but we're always challenged to go on and try to resolve certain issues that's number one number two even though we can't reach this final moment of perfect if you like translation out of the symbol into philosophy there remain rival of rival views that rival interpretations that you can put forward and although we can't totally end this rivalry by saying well this one is the absolutely right one and that one is not it's possible to proffer arguments that one is better than another after all if you think of this consideration of that consideration in other words features of the phenomenon that you're trying to get at which this account gives a better a better idea a better account than that other account right so you can there so there's three things here you can't translate it out fully you have therefore possible conflict of interpretations but you can never end that conflict yes numb point number two but point number three there's a very possible and very important rational activity of try to show that this is more satisfactory not totally there's more satisfactory than that that's a conflict of interpretations now what this means is that the the task of philosophical anthropology or if you like the task of hermeneutics and therefore philosophical anthropology is condemned to a kind of your like bilingualism I mean I don't mean this in the Canadian sense but you know you have to be running your language and with two kinds of logics and two kinds of tracks the relationship of tinis to languages is what I want to call an antiphonal one that is you have the attempt of philosophy to make sense of the symbol you know then somebody else comes along and shows you that that's not very satisfactory because there's something you're not getting to so you have an argument about that so you go back and look at the symbol again you make further philosophical interpretation and so on back and forth you never resolve this back and forth that's why I want to call it and tiffin all and this is something this relationship is very important part of our intellectual life generally I would argue I mean for instance take the relation between literature and criticism a work of literature and works of criticism we have something like the same kind of liquor in relation between one potentially enigmatic or don't quite understand what it involves object the work of art and an attempt to make clear what's really being said here and exactly the same relations recur here because we have possible different interpretations we never get to the final one that can wipe the others out you know most people write this is the definitive work on Shakespeare you know ain't no such thing but buddy you know it's good to sell books at the time and a band but it goes on endlessly and it remains forever split this is kind of split between these two languages now this of course contrasts very strongly with both the earlier phenomenology on one hand and what's considered to be a normal requirement of the reductive type explanations in both these cases we strive after a perfectly sufficient and accurate language one is the language of phenomenological description and the other is of course the language of reductive explanation in in science right and in both these cases it's just taken as axiomatic that the ultimate solutions are words in philosophical anthropology will be couched in a single coherent language the curve is saying something very challenging and maybe very depressing from that point of view that no there is this there is this duality in the languages we're going to use and one of the ways it comes out there's another way I'll come to in a minute one of the ways it comes out is in this antiphonal relationship now there's a various what he calls later on a d.school mixed where you have attempt to put together these two kinds of logics in a single discourse but in a very important way the duality remains and that's what I want to try to explain by now moving over to look more clearly at the what comes out of the tradition of language with the meaning of nature of meaning and language that comes from the German romantics now I have to these two very great families of language theory one which I attribute to or connect with Hobbes Locke and cognac which I call the HLC right and the other which I draw from Homme on here der Humboldt so you have the age three H of the Triple H and I was like like a Texan ranch one of George Bush's friends and self but don't think Texan ranch think of these three writers and they are very very different the first one the HLC Brede holds out the hope of a single coherent language of science and of course in the case of Hobbes in the case of Locke in the case of equality AK it was thought out in that way that the point of it was to develop a coherent language of science so they Hobson Locke and later contact bills on this keep telling us what you have to have is clear definitions you have to stick to those definitions as you go on don't try to you know flip around what what meaning you're putting into the word as you move along your reasoning and through that kind of consistency you can build up a system of knowledge which is totally coherent and anything else is going to be sabotage your scientific effort and lead to confusion and in Hobbes this case you know terrible things happen from this kind of confusion you begin to believe it and freedom the political freedom and so on and that and all hell breaks loose so it has to be maintained so one of the very strong negative charges that you find constantly in this tradition is against metaphor against any tropes against in any kind of figurative speech if you get wonderful passages of condemnation what Hobbes says that you know if you have a scientific language I should have the the quotation here because it's quite powerful scientific language when you have all these colors these concepts clear defined or else you move over and you are wandering in a fog among Ignace Factory probably in Ireland and you you are totally lost to any kind of clear thought so metaphors are out well immediately you can see that this kind of use of the symbol is knocked out of is out of bounds totally from this point of view of this kind of language and you can see why then the HLC gets modernized I mean it's incredibly you read Hobbes and Locke you're constantly struck by how naive all this is but the great modernization of that occurred reading it would be very brief for the work of Frager in a certain sense a great deal of modern analytic philosophy is post Freund Frager made it immensely more sophisticated because he saw that the proposition is not simply putting together a number of words but involves the attribution of some property to an object of reference end and a in turn attribution and besides that he greatly enlarged the armoury of formal logic he brought in the logic of quantification and so on so we can now aim at systems of thought way in which different propositions are tied together by entailment by deduction from some from from others so you get the attempt at a clearly regimented language of someone like Robert Brandon talks about in history work right so you can see that they this tradition a tradition that promised a clear scientific language has been immensely more power and more is logical armory and a structure which makes it but kind of almost hypnotizing the powerful language for many many philosophers that's why post-reagan thought is such a mean the post friggin element is so important in an analytic thought now it's against that you have what emerges from the other the other traditions I call I'd like to call the HLC tradition the instrumental designate of theories and I want to call the HHH tradition the expressive an active tradition right so and what the one of the big features that distinguishes them is that the latter the HHH tradition is aware of what I want to call the constitutive power of language so in order to illustrate this I'd like now I hope this is going to be get across clearly because it's thought it's not easy and I don't know if I really fully control all the elements here but there are two I want to call them semantic logics that are clearly embedded in different elements of our language some by semantic logic I mean the following here let's go back to Humboldt good place to start Humboldt keeps saying you know we have this drive in us keep this drive if when we have a sense that there's something we'd like to say we don't have the linguistic means to say it but typical of a human being is that that drive pushes them forward to discover the new terms which will allow them to say that so this is this notion of a perpetually perpetual Drive in human being so you see here you have something which is involves the experience that like something I can't really say funny way of saying it and then the development of vocabulary the development of whatever means I need in order finally to say it and that's something which goes on forever I mean this always comes to be new new things to say all right let's look at that keep that drive and ask ourselves well how do the resources get produced how did the resources come about and there's where you can see two difference what I want to call semantic logics that is two different logics underlying two things at once the production of new churns developers invention whatever you want to call of new terms and the testing correction alterations all of these terms because it's not enough simply to throw them out people can say that's not an adequate way of doing it let's try another way or list that's changed this and this or that respect in order to get a really adequate every formulation right so we need an idea not just a production but of testing of testing or correcting right now the if you look at certain areas like the ordinary if you think of it natural science the semantic logic seems to work exactly as the HLC supposed because in the hobbs law cognac tradition the basic experience is some object occurs before us and we find a name for it we find a word for it and we attach that word that sound to that object or in the Lockean case it has to be of course the dualism has to operate it gets attached to the idea which is the idea produced by the but by this indirect route it's attached to the object so the object that we're going to talk about right maybe what is becomes available semantically as an object to talk about is there beforehand and is the experience of it it's there and it is named or there's a more complex mode of production of new terms we can in the name of scientific explanations suppose I'm a kind of underlying mechanism atoms and so on and those two we name but by supposing them for supposing they're small objects that are moving around and then we named them atoms so the the objects are in a certain sense prior now in the case of other kinds of terms which are essential to us that's not how it works at all and I want to try to give an account of this second semantic logic by looking at what I want to call human meanings that is things that are not document linguistic meanings but things that are important importance to us in one way or another they have a significance for us except the word significances and the plural is long and and cumbrous so I'm going to talk about human meanings and perhaps in order to make that easier still I will talk about certain key examples to have in mind and the examples are ethical or quasi earth economy more satisfactory you know you name it form of life or mode of living or a feature of such a mode of living which we call a virtue that kind of term right so things like you know if someone really dedicated to humanitarian action or you know in on languages of another is he a saint or is he a bhikkhu or or if you look at negative characterizations is he in his life without spot and stain or with or we have obvious virtue terms like I got a Karuna positive freedom and then a series of very interesting typical symbols on a leaker things like integrity harmony non fragmentation see here you have the the opposition fragmentary hole being played out in different ways as we all know what it is to break to sell JDeveloper to have it whole or to rip this paper up or have it whole and we use that as a way of getting to with integrity you get to that in the sense that you hang together what you say you do what you promised you keep there are other ways of playing out the in the fragmentary whole distinction like the Platonic one if you have a soul which is fighting with itself or a soul which is harmonious and you can use you can see other ways in which this is played out so here we have other features of you like the good life to which we are reaching through Ricardian type symbols and you have various another example various understandings of honor and this is very interesting because they're different different different civilizations you have a typical modern concept a meaningful life I'm looking or here she is looking for a meaningful life that's interesting the conditions in which that can arise or we can move beyond the standard things which sound probably sound good to most of us here we can have your life as a work of art inspired by Nietzsche presented by Foucault and some of his works then you can have things that my consider not really ethical because below the level of that but being cool or being a dandy or being hip or being a Humphrey Bogart I mean there are ways of existence which we might say they don't for us they wouldn't have the seriousness of the ethical but they have the same kind of structure this is a better mode of life and then we will differ as to one of these really which of these really deserved to be called the ethical ones and which ones are caricatures or or we have another category that's an aesthetic category not an ethical category but okay we live by these undersea human life is inconceivable without these right now how do these concepts work how do they get produced how do people get taught them how to be circulate and we see very rapidly that they have a quite different kind of of semantic logic in which it's the in a sense the opposite of the first one where the object is there and then we find the word here the introduction of the word getting the idea that yes that's what I'm doing that's what it's all about alters the skein of meanings the skein of meanings in which we live gets changed now let's look at features of these meanings which will explain that they want to mention three features of these kind of meanings let's call them quasi ethic or ethical if you'll give me that as a phrase number one is that there's no dispassionate access to them that is to have the sense that this is a good way of life is typically accompanied by a certain effect not in every moment that you speak it but in a moment where do you really believe this you really think that's a good way of life yes now that is it must be accompanied by some sense of authority is this a revolting way of life yeah no that it must be accompanied by some effect because that is how we know it the the intuition is a an intuition with effect let's take a contrast case to see what I'm talking about here we all have linguistic intuitions it ain't necessarily so is in proper English we probably all agree on that but unless we have another ethical view about the importance of pedantry and so on which i confess to having a certain moments but let's leave that aside and this we have other ethical views this quite dispassionate I just see that that's bad grammar and that's an intuition I have immediately had but I can have it without any kind of effect whereas it's impossible to imagine someone who really subscribes to let's say universal bilenda's universal humanism value of rescuing and helping all human beings everywhere that's what I believe but feels absolutely nothing about this I mean you're that way you could the case would have to be someone just repeating by rote what he or she has been told if it could be embraced with the same effect lessness that one embraces the proposition you know it ain't necessarily so is not not grammatical so that's one this at this point about the moral intuitions is of course has a home I'll show it even louder this point about moral intuitions is of course has a long history in moral philosophy everyone recognizes that their moral intuitions and and most people can be taught to recognize that they are not effect free but then this this can lead people off into a totally subjectivist view you know just how you feel you feel this way I feel that way she feels that way he feels that way and that's all there is to it but that's not the cases I want to come back to in a minute then the second point about them is that they very often they naming them we very often have acts have recourse to these quasi metaphors like when I we talk about integrity or stain and third that these meanings are not punctual they're situated always in skeins or landscapes I mean let's just consider the example of honor that I gave there earlier honor is an English word I mean a European word but we often use it to translate an Arabic word or we use it to translate a Japanese word and so on and it's clear that there's something very dubious going on here because the gamut of things for which which is save on earth the gamut of things which damage honor the gamut of obligations that would expressive of Honor and so on is so very different sometimes with various items that only occur in this culture and don't occur in the other culture so we're dealing with something which has a certain analogy but not an exact translation from society to society but what I want to bring out here is that you only can have a concept like honor in a whole skein of concepts of a pride shame and so on which and be things that bring about pride and shame that that give them their their sense so those that's the feature of these human beings now what is the difference of the of the semantic logic that is the different way in which they are created and criticized and created and questions well here the difference in semantic logic is that introducing somebody to a new language for what they're feeling alter is anneka missing them I mean not just saying it but they mean I accept this language is altering the skein of meanings I mean if I convince you that you're supposedly Morse for what you did is not really remorse I mean what really bothers you let's face it is that you've got a very black mark by the Dean or there or whoever is it you know is gonna make a difference in your life and you're not really sorry right now to see that as so I can give it on the names of this you're you should feel like you're you're worried about your loss of reputation in a key in a key area and that's really what's going if I can miss you that doesn't believe the feeling unchanged doesn't believe it alters it now why as you see as you can see the difference in the two semantic logics in one case the object is there and the other can rename it in this case the object itself is in certain sense shaped by the semantic novelty take innovation and this is because of course we're not dealing with the distant object independent in that one ordinary sense of the word right that's a desk the word desk applies to that we're dealing with our own the skein of meanings in which we are living our lives the skein of meaning from which we are actually living actually the way the world impinges on us and semantic innovation actually alters that skein now that's I want to go to two directions at once if I manage to do this properly I want the two directions I want to go in I want to expand on the what lies behind the invention of these new terms in one direction and I want to get over the impression that you might have now that I think that anything goes as subjectivist no okay maybe I'll do this that one first right subjective theory is wrong because we are aware as we are innovating these new terms and changing our views or accepting a certain understanding of the meanings that we could be wrong we could be confused we could be forgetting something really important I mean when I saw this example I gave a minute ago can show that in operation I I'm convincing you you didn't make it a station you just felt bad and the word remorse looked like a really you know proper kosher word to use for how you feel and so on so you said you felt remorse but I'm convincing you to something else that could be going on here that is going on here making a distinction you didn't make before and that is what alters your situation or it could be that you make a shift in your own judgment because you question and examine yourself means this income somebody else can come from you or it could be from someone else but you know I think that I'm really very excited about this kind of success and you know a lot of people are phrasing my name and so on and then doing I'm a famous football player or whatever and then somebody says is that pro you know it's not a reading is sufficient life for you how about your family life or how about etc and they raise something that you just aren't giving any proper weight too but when presented you can't help but say yeah it's something important so immediately your your sense of what of the supreme overriding importance of this gets shifted if you're like I'm gonna give this sense of a landscape or a skein of meanings and there that's we're all living we're always living with readjustments of like I think so my convincing you to look at this and recognize this is a brings about that kind of shift or means other examples of this kind of thing where you you're just certain politics in which you think that some kind of changes are real all that matter and that that's going to make life better and then you're forced to see that it's more complicated that the methods used for these kind of changes will produce terrible effects and so you modify your your views so you can see that you have here the the very fact that there's a primacy there's a kind of a anterior a of the new concepts on the objects of these concepts which are their feelings their feelings and meanings that you're living is not something which we understand as simply being the case that well whatever we feel is okay we are haunted constantly by the sense particularly in the light of the concepts I've been mentioning here's my example that is good life concepts or ethical concept did have a go it right have a really comment right we are challenged by other people who live other ways we're challenged by people saying look this is over simple description of your situation and so on and so on and so on we are constantly struggling to get it better so there is something we're matching here but it's not an independent object see getting it right say that there are 35 desks in this room don't count beautifully you know if we did this is right because sunny will count them one two three four and that'll be the right thing to say this description of independent objects but when I say this way of life is really not worthy of a human being it should be that one you only bring people around by when they interior eyes your description of it you've changed the meanings for them but the sense that they have is of now I've got it right not have overcome this confusion or knife as it were got beyond that's got a blind spot right there's a sense of okay I'm gonna expand that a little bit longer before I get back in the other direction don't remember there's this other direction but I want to get to in a minute expanding that further you can see that there is a way of reasoning in human life or what I call it reasoning by transitions where we understand ourselves and have a reason to understand ourselves as having a better view now than we did before because we can give an account of how we got from there to here which involves some error reducing move I've overcome a confusion I've recognized something that really was always there and important but it didn't recognize before I've got over a to simple understanding of what the issues are in this area so you are able to have some confidence in your new position because of how you got there so let's go back to mellow party 101 immunise is a feature of human life in general you know the famous example so I'm picking up a hammer to hammer something that's also Heidegger but that's okay that for a middle point each point I'm picking up a hammer to hammer something and I feel kind of awkward I don't really have so and then finally I have a good grip on it I'm ready to use it now that process is the primitive origin point of reasoning by transitions I know I have a good grip cuz I'm got a good I've got I've come to have a good grip on it right and this reasoning by transitions also operates in our in our lives and ok I'll pick up one more thing on this which is another very important contribution of LIGO in telling they see the whole importance of narrative we understand our lives narrative ly and cannot do otherwise and this sometimes gives us the confidence to say that we've made some headway and this is really a believable position because we've arrived at it in that way so we can see that we have in this kind of area let's pull together the semantic logic here as against a semantic logic where we encounter the object and then find a word let's say I'm you know doing some kind of study of species and I meet a new rodent in the totally as yet undiscovered species of rodent in the Amazon forest and I call it a road into this table Rihanna so something like that okay and so I give it a name that's the one semantic logic and the other semantic logic is this one in which we either invent ourselves and you words are given them by someone outside they seem convincing but we're convinced that they're the invention is worthwhile when we invent them and they're we're convinced by our friend that this is the right way of describing it and that actually alters the object but that doesn't mean that anything goes in the country there's another way in which this is verified made sense of we can be have confidence in it which is really very very different from the matching of an independent object if you're like the correspondence theory of truth is right for things that are introduced by the first type of semantic logic but it's not right for things that are introduced by this other type of semantic logic all right so am i oh my god I really do we are very far along but adept me let me now move in the other direction which which direction is what it's looking at the deeper background of this semantic invention of the second logic and the deeper background is something it takes us outside of language altogether let's look at either or both the real invention or putting into human circulation of a new ethical way of life or quasi have to go way of life or else from the other side looking at how these ways of life are communicated to other people so it's just obvious in cases like you know Jesus in the New Testament or the Buddha or the way gun the operators on that these people start off doing something which is very very striking which we don't necessarily have even they may not necessarily have a word for it yet and this but the same goes right down I mean you know if I see all these moot because of like and so on I really want to be right at home freeboard yeah I just I feel really good when I this well this came across to me and now we can all that did bow Guardian mode of life but but this came across to me first in seeing this guy on the screen right now in order to confuse this even more I have to add one more thing which is that alongside getting a word for it and enacting it there's a third possibility which we developed out of both of these which is portraying it in a work of art and the way that's really what happened in the Boggart case you know is the the Casablanca and all those movies are works of art but there are in much more complex ways I mean we can argue about the you know the late quartets of Beethoven if you want to go real the real summit of all this in which there's something there's something there something said there some possibilities for human life though I hadn't thought of before so it's raw like meeting an extraordinary figure now if you look at passing this on then you also get this as it we're collaborative operation of new vocabulary of new words and of enactments so you think of bulges famous studies and Kabini about how you want it inculcate in the children respect for the elders and one of the first way you inculcated is by what he calls the body habitus you know we talked to the elders in this with with a respectful tone and we're bowing or maybe we're looking at their feet and that's what that that is what is our first introduction to something which will later on be codified words for respect will be used and so on it's something that's required of us as young people this very interesting thing here what we have is the encapsulation or the expression see you survived the notion expression comes out of the of the HHA tradition the expression in act of a very profound and extremely subtle human meaning having the habitus is not having some mechanical tendency to bow it's having a sense of how to enact this in different situations I mean you're really old I'm gonna go read far down and you're just a little bit older than me so I'm gonna be a little bit less but but also it's clear that you have to be expressing it in the way of being cheeky is to like in other words carry through the emotions go through the motions in a way would you don't enact and Express this this meaning and so now we have here a much more complex and rather deeper understanding of what it is to if there were bring about semantic innovation in the second dimension which very often it builds on an earlier innovation or a parallel innovation in enacted meaning and by parallel I also mean the case where which is very very : we don't really understand what the concept means unless we have some sense of what it is to enact it right so we pick up so I mean there is loving and there's the language of love and the gestures of love in it gestures of the language and then the gestures of generosity and sensitivity and so on and to really understand what it is to be generous to be loving to be considerate and so on is to have some sense of how to enact these and that's how we're we're brought up into the group we're generally speaking brought up into them before we have a lot of words piled on us or maybe there are only very simple words so now we have in this second semantic logic something that's way outside the box of the first semantic logic that is purely dealing with words with language in the ordinary sense of the of the term and this is a mode of invention or introduction of something new which builds on an actor's introduction and actively of something of some new way of being you know only the Borg or with a cigarette in the corner of the mouth some new air being is being enacted then being this being connected to a name and so we have in our general grasp of these concepts is on three levels were related in a rather complex way we can grasp this new way of being by just seeing people enacted and picking it up right it's like being you know a metro a biker and so a bike rider you just follow the leader and you just take on certain gestures and a way of holding yourself you can find a word for it like macho which is not quite the same culture it gets us but and you can have a much more complex account of why this is important what it's doing how it fits into your way of life or like you know the the kids learn to bow in Kappa D according to Bulger they learn whatever their word is in comedian for for respect and then they may be told you know this is why it's important to older people really are wise boy I'd like to go and live there and they you know they understand things better and so you owe them respect and so on so you have this three tiers of enactment of terminology and of a surrounding account which are kind of tiered on each other you can have the first perhaps without the second the first and second without without the third all that underlies the introduction of new terms new understandings of new ways of being and then it is if you like verified ratified by the way if we can see it we can have the intuition that it is something correct and adequate now that's okay I'm gonna break off here but it's a terribly perilous place in which I almost finishing on the middle of a sentence because all right on three more minutes and I'll break off here and try to point where I want to go that's not the only way we can ratify as valid these new ways of being it has to be there's a few like an inner ratification where we say yeah we have the same kind of felt intuition that that's the right way of being that we had earlier about lesser to us now lesser modes of ethical action but there also is a surrounding discourse about why this is important about the ontology that lies behind this I mean this is precisely in a Christian context a sense of God and our relation to God we have all this surrounding discourse which is capable of ratification or non ratification in its own right by seeing how much sense it makes of human life in general that's what I want to call if you like an extern of ratification so the ratification is something very much more complex than simply but but must include at its center the sense that yeah that's this seems to me to be righted with the felt intuition that it's right but so we see the the whole operation is one in which we have invention and ratification totally unlike invention and ratification in the other case where it's simply finding a word and then making a proposition with these words and seeing if the world you know there are 75 disks let's see if it's true we see if it matches it's quite different kind of ratification here so last sentence today except for the ones were tell you what I'm going to do tomorrow you can see the parallel to the HHH concept of the symbol where you have ha man starts off with this wonderful line of a human language evading Ebro system to talk is to translate his idea is that the world we see around us is the language of God to us and we can only really get that by a property but translating it right so you have here there's an initiative on our part which is the translation of that and then there is a way in which this can be corrected rights by seeing if it really does get us in contact with with the world I think that is crucial to the whole theory of expression of the symbol of the work of art that you see in the 1790s it's that this particular poem is meant to bring us in contact with something and does it or does it fail to do that so it's proposed and then ratified or questioned or not be so sure right it's that is the movement which was were put forward which was presented it was proposed by the 1790s and it fits exactly this other kind of of semantics logic okay so okay to us so you can see why I hope that I'll try to work out why but I think you can see why my car is right that the language we need for her units is never going to be a single language because it's going to be growing concepts with two irreducible it should be irreducible semantic logics but what I want to talk about next time is a lot of 0 in much more on our actual moral theories because I think that the reaction to this in mainstream analytic moral philosophy has been just totally to blank it out with the result that is a very very impoverished moral theory that you get what can we say about moral theory in the light of this semantic enlargement and how can we understand it ratified argue for it and so on so that's what I'd like to talk about tomorrow and I was going to say I promise but I hope not that the same excessive length so thank you very very much you

Posted by Lewis Heart

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *