This is the final part of the language and bewitchment series and is the second article that deals with the fallacy of assuming that because the word exists; the thing represented by the word also exists. As a philosopher, I have no authority to comment on the extent to which this fallacy impacts on the lives of people. This would require a great deal of research that may involve the disciplines of psychology and maybe sociology. However, I suspect that such research would reveal some impact on individuals and society.
Subject and Predicate
Another problem with my language – i.e. the English language1 - and its potential to deceive the intellect, is the way it structures a sentence through subject and predicate. To say; ‘this rose is red’ is fine because the predicate is objective (i.e. not dependent on me in any way) but the claim ‘this bed is too hard’ (as Goldilocks said) is not fine, because it attempts to make objective something that is subjective (the hardness of the bed). Arguments about this wine being too sweet or not sweet enough can never be resolved because they are both correct as far as the wine tasters are concerned - as Immanuel Kant famously claimed.
But some arguments may arise because it may not be appreciated that some claims presented by employing the term ‘is’ between a subject and predicate are subjective. The ‘is’ in front of rose and behind red means that the rose has the quality of being red and that this redness will be accepted by all who view the rose. But the ‘is’ in front of wine and behind sweet means something completely different: it means that I find this wine to be sweet; a subjective claim. But the problems associated with this intersect with those we have been talking about above. There is a tendency to believe that anything following an ‘is’ exists in an objective sense as in ‘he is a conspiracy theorist’. The use of ‘is’, in front of an objective predicate, can reinforce the view that because the word exists then the thing represented by the word also exists. ‘He ‘is’ stupid’; for example, suggests that ‘stupid’ exists in some sense rather than mere acts of stupidity or actions that have not been wisely assessed.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, as President of the USA, famously announced to the American people hard hit by depression: ‘We have nothing to fear, but fear itself’. This suggests that ‘fear’ exists in some sense, apart from things we can be fearful of. This makes no sense. What he should have said is that ‘we have nothing to be afraid of apart from fear of being afraid’. I’m not sure that would be adequate to the meaning he wanted to convey, but at least it makes sense. Another example concerns the biblical concept of ‘evil’, which has been thought to exist independently out there somewhere; though I doubt whether anyone has found it. But people are not infected with evil or likely to encounter it on a dark night; rather, people take actions that can be defined as evil or just ‘wrong’. Looking at it this way at least provides for some sort of rehabilitation. Of course, some believe that people can be infected with evil which can be eliminated only through spiritual exorcism, cleansing or purging.
Positing Clear Cut Divisions Where None Exist
Another fault inherent in our language is the tendency to posit clear cut divisions where none exist. For example, technically, no one is either sane or insane; rather, there are degrees of sanity or insanity - as anyone who has worked within the field of mental health will know. Some people can be sane for 99% of the time; then suffer a psychotic episode. It cannot be claimed that because of this episode, the person experiencing it is always insane - or can be labelled insane.
The same could be said of concepts such as stupid; no one can be stupid in an absolute sense (if at all); rather, there are degrees of stupidity or, more correctly, actions or thinking that are misinformed or misguided to various degrees. Aristotle has been blamed for this because he created the law of the excluded middle; i.e. everything is either A or not A. This may work in some cases (e.g. everything either is or is not and can’t be both at the same time) but not with regard to sanity and insanity – among other things.
There is much more that could have been said about language and bewitchment – especially on the subject of Wokeness and the way language has been distorted by those who promote it. At a later date, I will publish Appendix Six which will provide a little more detail on gender politics for those who are interested.
I will be continuing with the philosophising series even though it has attracted much less interest that the Update. But the response has been sufficient to persuade me to continue to satisfy those who are a little bit interested while not inconveniencing those who are not interested at all. The next chapter in the series deals with ‘independent thinking’ which explores the impediments to our efforts to reason clearly. People may find this more interesting that the philosophy of language.
Best wishes - Rob
Other languages suffer from this structure in the same way.
FDR, not Theodore Roosevelt on fear
"Nothing to fear but fear itself may refer to: A phrase from the 1933 inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself""
I myself am enjoying the series. For one, it shows your commitment to truth and honesty, which requires talking about how we think about "truth".