From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 16:47:52 GMT
Hi Sam,
Yeah, I didn't really mean to imply that you weren't coming to my aid. The
way you said it, though, made me think of someone coming on the scene and
just saying that irrespective of everything I've said before, which
obviously is not you. I actually thought it was kinda' funny.
You said:
"However, you summarise your position as: "A more accurate statement is that
we can't have knowledge of a pre-linguistic reality." Which I would say is -
we can't talk about something without using language, which is a tautology.
Are you arguing for something more than that, ie that all our awareness is
necessarily linguistic?"
Its very true that the statement probably pans out to a tautology. As for
our awareness being necessarily linguistic, I wouldn't say necessarily, but
rather contingently. Its contingent on us using language. And we can't
get behind that language. If not being able to get behind language is that
something extra you're looking to get a handle on, then there it is. The
"linguistic turn" that many contemporary philosophers have taken is the
turn away from talking about mind to talking about language. Mind is a
non-entity now (for these philosophers). Part of this turn is that, strip
away language and you aren't left with mind, you're left with nothing. We
can conceive of pre-langauge animals and babies, and that they are aware,
but we can't conceive of ourselves being aware without having language.
Bring back mind and you bring back its problems, which includes the
possibility of a reality back behind appearances.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 16:55:40 GMT