2008 Woodie Awards
Language: the last of the great myths
Fred Bauer
Issue date: 2/18/05 Section: Viewpoint
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Our first ideas come from direct observation. (Perhaps.) We learn names of colors from others' words, but we learn colors by seeing them. Later, however, "words, words, words must constitute a large part, and an always larger part as life advances, of what the human being has to learn." That claim, from William James, is one that you, a full-time learner, should research. Once verified, it should act as an acid to eat away at the myth that either science or philosophy exist.
The research is simplicity itself. See which professors speak during class. Words. Which ones write on the board? Words. Which use texts? More words. Words, words, words!
And professors? Same thing. We, too, were students, and 99% of our specialized knowledge came via words. Take Newton. What would he have discovered without books by Euclid, Kepler, Galileo, etc., all dead men he never met? Still not convinced? Inspect one of your fat textbooks. How much is from the author's own personal research, and how much from reading sources listed in back-page notes and bibliography?
James's first thesis leads to a second: "Whether about generalities or particulars, man thinks always by the same methods. He observes, discriminates, generalizes, classifies, looks for causes, traces analogies, and makes hypotheses." Start with "observes." The minds of us professors are like yours. No one uses special methods to hear spoken words or read printed ones. The eyes and ears of physicists work just like the eyes and ears of theologians. Our intellects work like yours when we interpret what we see and hear. And none of us has a secret method for deciding which words convey literal truth, which offer useful fiction, and which peddle error.
Convey? Here we run into an ancient conundrum about learning. We all have the impression that words 'convey' knowledge. But Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Locke all exposed that impression as an illusion.
Start with Locke. Are the things we see really words? At first, it seems absurd to even ask such a question. But tarot cards remain tarot cards when they are 'read.' Tealeaves do not become something else when they are 'read.' Poker players' facial features are simply facial features, whether or not we know how to 'read' them. With such obvious facts to guide us, we can learn to think with utter precision when we examine what we call "written words."
The research is simplicity itself. See which professors speak during class. Words. Which ones write on the board? Words. Which use texts? More words. Words, words, words!
And professors? Same thing. We, too, were students, and 99% of our specialized knowledge came via words. Take Newton. What would he have discovered without books by Euclid, Kepler, Galileo, etc., all dead men he never met? Still not convinced? Inspect one of your fat textbooks. How much is from the author's own personal research, and how much from reading sources listed in back-page notes and bibliography?
James's first thesis leads to a second: "Whether about generalities or particulars, man thinks always by the same methods. He observes, discriminates, generalizes, classifies, looks for causes, traces analogies, and makes hypotheses." Start with "observes." The minds of us professors are like yours. No one uses special methods to hear spoken words or read printed ones. The eyes and ears of physicists work just like the eyes and ears of theologians. Our intellects work like yours when we interpret what we see and hear. And none of us has a secret method for deciding which words convey literal truth, which offer useful fiction, and which peddle error.
Convey? Here we run into an ancient conundrum about learning. We all have the impression that words 'convey' knowledge. But Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Locke all exposed that impression as an illusion.
Start with Locke. Are the things we see really words? At first, it seems absurd to even ask such a question. But tarot cards remain tarot cards when they are 'read.' Tealeaves do not become something else when they are 'read.' Poker players' facial features are simply facial features, whether or not we know how to 'read' them. With such obvious facts to guide us, we can learn to think with utter precision when we examine what we call "written words."