Although the
matter of our topic might give us the impression that we are dealing with
emotions, unfortunately the topic is more about language rather than emotions.
Having said that there is ample scope to discuss feeling and emotions one the
language issues are clarified.
Natural
languages can sometimes include features in words and expressions that go
beyond the meaning of a word. Even if we accept that a word is just one form of
carrying meaning in a speech act, there are many words that convey a type of
meaning rather than just meaning. This is true of our words “obsession” and
“highly emotional”: in effect natural languages do not deal with words but with
concepts. As with other natural languages many concepts are made up of a group
of words (the structure) rather than just a single word. Proverbs, sayings and
phrasal verbs are such examples.
Unfortunately,
it is not my intention nor is it the time to go into excursions in the
philosophy of language or even linguistics. My intention is to argue for two
positions: (1) although we can translate a speech act (text/spoken) from one
natural language to another for basic ideas and factual things, in reality as
philosophers we ought to be sceptical about the real value of translation. And
this scepticism does not only apply to philosophical, scientific or literary works
but also to ordinary circumstance in real life. A translation app on our mobile
might give us the syntax on how to order a beer in Spanish but that is all it
will do: there would be a semantic difference if one is (1) an English speaker
and (2) a British English speaker. So
unless you are at a make believe British/Irish pub in Spain, your translator
will not tell you that beer in Spain is ordered by different sizes of glass
which are much smaller than the familiar pint glass in the UK, and to make
things more complex that beer is cold unlike the UK.
My second
argument is that Wittgenstein’s idea that ordinary language takes its meaning
from the accepted use is in effect too generous to the powers of a natural
language. My argument is that at the very best the established meaning is very
specific in time and the prevailing culture of the speakers. My intention is
not to criticise or discuss Wittgenstein but to alert readers to issues that
might confuse a philosophical discussion rather than help the discussion. I am
in no doubt that I’m not the first to point these things out but I don’t have
the time to research the issue.
So going
back to our topic the words “obsession” and “highly emotional” have the implied
type of having a negative meaning. “Highly emotional” does not mean being “very
sensitive” or “having strong emotions (about something/someone)” but rather someone
who is highly emotional is someone who gets very agitated and maybe even
aggressive about the subject. Someone who is highly emotional might even be
described as unreasonable, but highly emotional in British English does imply a
negative feeling; see for example the use in this article in the Guardian: Life
after redundancy — episode 2 https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/life-after-redundency-episode-2-mark-palmer-edgecumbe).
Seeing the meaning of this word in US word definition sites they do include the
idea of strong emotions (positive and negative) for something. But this does
not negate the type of word we are discussing but highlights the deviation of
the type/meaning of words over cultures.
Fortunately,
obsession is less problematic; in ordinary language obsession has clear negative
overtones. To speak of someone being obsessed with something is to imply that whatever
they are doing it is not good for them or not a healthy activity. Of course,
the person themselves might think that this is nonsense and they might be
right. For example we can describe a friend of being obsessed with football but
that’s maybe because we don’t like football but their football friends might
think they are amazing. In a medical (psychological) context obsession is more
serious and the ideas and feelings might lead to other negative effects, maybe even
have a direct negative health effect. In effect we are departing from the idea
that meaning is how we use language to the idea that meaning is very much
context driven: ordinary use, banter, professional, medical legal and so on.
But this was
one of the issues Wittgenstein warned us against: we as philosophers should not
try to give special meanings to ordinary words that we use in everyday life.
Philosophers should not compound language by inventing new meaning for words
which no one else knows about. This is good advice although it seems scientists
forgot their Wittgenstein.
We have
two other philosophical issues we need to contend with. The first is the
scientific method of the falsification of hypotheses. The scientific method is
dependent on understanding empirical events through mathematical analysis: thus
the first issue for science is how to translate mathematical uses into
understandable ordinary language. And to complicate matters in ordinary language
we do not usually have access to empirical events or objects which scientists
concern themselves with: in our daily life we usually do not come across cells
and molecules although we are made of such things or quantum effects although
we are surrounded by these effects.
So the
language of scientists cannot be the syntax and ordinary meaning of words everyone
uses never mind that some phenomena are not represented in ordinary day life
and ordinary day language: some non scientific people might discuss cells and
molecules over a pint but not the general population. Thus obsession like many
other words might have a meaning in ordinary language and a different one in a
scientific and other technical professions (compare “reasonable” in ordinary
language use and “reasonable” in a legal context).
The second
philosophical issue we have to contend with is Thomas Khun’s paradigm shift
principle. If we accept the principle of scientific paradigm shift, I would
argue that what changes when there is a paradigm shift is not only our
hypotheses, but also our science: what we accept physics to be today is
different from what 18th century natural philosophers thought
physics was. Indeed, if we reflect on this principle for a second when we have
a paradigm shift in a scientific discipline we also change the language (and
mathematics) of that discipline.
I would go
further and suggest when we have a paradigm shift in society we also have a
paradigm shift in the language employed in that society. Of course, the syntax
might remain, but what matters is the meaning we give to such syntax. This
would explain why it is difficult for parents to understand the language their
children use and for the grandparents to be flummoxed and if not belligerent to
the language employed by their grand children. But a more striking example is
the shift between British English and American English (or any other English
and other natural languages): the irony is that many American words and pronunciation
reflect the original British English of a few centuries ago. (This is a
fascinating subject but one needs to put in some serious time to really acquire
a reasonable idea of this subject!!)
Coming back
to our topic, one of the differences between obsession and highly emotional, is
that an obsession might have medical or psychological implications whereas
someone who is highly emotional might be a pain and annoying to other people
but that’s their character and not a matter of something that is disturbing
them. Highly emotional people might need to develop some good manners while
obsessive people might need help and to learn how to deal with their issues.
In effect, if
we want to describe positive emotions we would use “passionate”, and in matters
of love we can use besotted or infatuated, instead of obsessed and for “highly
emotional” we might use for example “someone with strong opinions” or “someone
who feel passionate about something”.
To conclude
we might want to complicate the matter even further. We might want to use the
word “opinionated” except I have already argued that even the same language
does not travel well in time and distance is space. In US English the meaning
of opinionated is someone who might have an opinion maybe even strong opinions,
whereas in British English opinionated means someone who is obstinate or unreasonable
about their own opinion. The morale of the subject matter is that given how
slippery and unsettled our language about emotions can be, how slippery and
unsettled can a discussion on emotions be?
Best
Lawrence
tel:
606081813
philomadrid@gmail.com
Blog:
http://philomadrid.blogspot.com.es/
OR PhiloMadrid.com
MeetUp
https://www.meetup.com/PhiloMadrid-philosophy-group/
Gran Clavel (Café-Bar): Gran vía 11, esquina C/ Clavel,
28013—Madrid
No comments:
Post a Comment