What is metaphysics in relation to language? Is language a subset of metaphysics, or is metaphysics a subset of language, and if not what is language or metaphysics in relation to the other, and why is it difficult to represent those two in a sort of Venn diagram? Sounds like a dumb question, but I have trouble answering and I can't figure out why.
-
1ungainly question, but if it has any good answers in it then it'll be very interesting – Aug 27 '22 at 01:02
-
2Indeed so long as you keep questioning in its current SE linguistic-only form (including diagrams) you'll very likely become enmeshed and puzzled eventually about the actual relationship between the supposed "objective" metaphysics which is supposed to be independent with the supposed "subjective" use of any natural or formal language to the point that one no longer can differentiate between a real potlatch party and the invitation ticket to the said party. And there seems no way out... – Double Knot Aug 27 '22 at 01:09
-
1It's an excellent question, one that Rudolf Carnap asked. Metaphysics is contentious generally so there are a range of positions. – J D Aug 27 '22 at 02:23
-
1Language is a human practice (the fundamental one) while metaphysics is a branch of pilosophy discovered by Aristotle. Their relationship is quite complex. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 27 '22 at 16:24
-
Metaphysics deals with the objective world (things, parts, qualities, quantities), whereas language is a tool used by humans (and other animals) as a way of communicating to one another and themselves. They are different entirely. When someone speaks or writes something it is known as a particular thing called an utterance in metaphysically terms. So intuitively the relation between them is expression? – Richard Bamford Aug 30 '22 at 10:48
-
@RichardBamford And how do you think let alone "know" about the "objective" world if not through language? Metaphysics is a linguistic practice no matter its 'aboutness', it instantiates language. Thus, stating they are "entirely different" seems pretty bold to me. – Philip Klöcking Aug 30 '22 at 18:43
-
@PhilipKlöcking I believe that the concepts of metaphysics would exist even if language did not exist or nobody existed, so they are separate – Richard Bamford Aug 31 '22 at 07:13
-
@RichardBamford So you are an idealist believing in the absolute, independent existence of concepts (or 'ideas' as they were typically called historically)? That would make you part of a quite small minority position. Mind, I give you that the objects of metaphysics would exist without anyone conceptualising them but that doesn't mean that metaphysics itself would exist, which basically is a bunch of concepts and how they are linked semantically. I mean, how should the change of metaphysical concepts over time be explained? – Philip Klöcking Aug 31 '22 at 07:20
-
@PhilipKlöcking Metaphysical concepts change just like the concepts of physics change. We have the concept of mass now, but at one time we did not. I see it more as a discovery of the objective world. – Richard Bamford Sep 01 '22 at 14:05
2 Answers
Trivially, the set of all metaphysical statements is a subset of all articulated language statements.
However, metaphysics is essentially an academic discipline. By extension, metaphysics is the collection of theoretic views articulated by metaphysicians.
On the other side, language may be seen as the structure of verbal communication, that is, what is relatively stable in the verbal communication of one community of speech.
So there is no formal relation between metaphysics and language, and one is not a subset of the other.
Still...
Metaphysical theories require some language to be articulated.
All natural languages are used initially to communicate about what people believe that there is, which you could argue is precisely the subject matter of metaphysics, namely, being.
There is also no essential formal difference between statements made in everyday life and theoretic statements made in the context of metaphysics or of any formal science. To say that you have a sandwich in the fridge, or to say that there is a prime number less than 10 etc. is to make what is fundamentally a metaphysical statement, a statement about being. Even a fiction is just a statement about imaginary beings. The whole of mathematics is the collection of statements about conceptual beings using some mathematical language.
So, you could argue that metaphysics is just an effort to articulate what everybody says about what there is although in one unified and more coherent theoretic whole.
This is more general than that. Any science could be understood as already present in everyday life since the beginning of humanity. Science is just more systematic, more organised, more coherent etc. than everyday practice. Every individual science just emerged as a specialisation on one aspect of everyday expertise.
So you could always make connections, but these are trivial because not specific to metaphysics. There are also as many metaphysical beliefs as there are humans, although this is somewhat limited by human imagination.
The really profound connection is that human thought, and so verbal communication, and so verbal statements, is about what there is. The animal brain can be seen as a cognitive system dedicated to deciding what there is, even though, in effect, a brain can only possibly know what there is inside itself. But this is what makes any metaphysical statement inherently speculative.
- 7,364
- 1
- 11
- 26
-
3"By extension, metaphysics is the collection of theoretic views articulated by metaphysicians."
"To say that you have a sandwich in the fridge, or to say that there is a prime number less than 10 etc. is to make what is fundamentally a metaphysical statement, a statement about being. "----Good gawd.
– Aug 27 '22 at 11:13 -
1Re your "To say that you have a sandwich in the fridge, or to say that there is a prime number less than 10 etc. is to make what is fundamentally a metaphysical statement, a statement about being.", being is perhaps an uttermost important term in philosophy like the real clamor of a potlatch party while it seems I'm only told a second-hand mundane story of such a party from your above metaphysical statement... – Double Knot Aug 28 '22 at 01:40
-
@DoubleKnot "while it seems" Then it is up to you to find the words to justify why is so seem to you. On the face of it, all that we have are ideas in our minds and statements about them. Dignifying the metaphysical claims routinely produced in academia by saying they seem really, really important to you isn't quite enough. Short of that, you will only be good evidence of the mystifying power of words. – Speakpigeon Aug 28 '22 at 10:28
-
1I consider I've successfully commented above so that you admitted the objective existence of mystifying power of words according to Mr. White's answer to a recent post on this site. Further according to Idries Shah, there do exist forces, some of which are either rationalized by magic or may be developed from it, which do not come within customary physics or within the experience of ordinary people... – Double Knot Aug 28 '22 at 20:31
-
-
1@Speakpigeon Possibly I can make sense that you cannot make sense of my reply since I didn't see you commented or answered in my above referenced recent post questioned and answered/discussed by many quite active users on this site... – Double Knot Aug 29 '22 at 20:58
-
@Doubleknot Sorry, I still can't make sense of your previous reply and now I also can't make sense of this one. I guess we'll be better off ignoring each other if that's Ok with you. – Speakpigeon Aug 30 '22 at 09:38
Metaphysics is about the basic ontological categories in the world. Things like space, time, matter, cause and effect, motion, change and God.
Because reasoning about such basic categories is not easy, metaphysics has gained a bad reputation. And even more so in the contemporary intellectual world, which being so militantly athiest, sees anything that has the slightest whiff of the supernatural, and I mean this in its non-pejorative use, as being above nature, as frankly medieval, outmoded and deeply unfashionable as well as being unscientific and just so plain stupid that only stupid people can give it any credence. You get the picture.
In none of these categories listed above does language figures as a basic ontological category. After all, its easy enough to imagine a universe without life, and hence no language; but its much harder to conceptualise what a world without space or time might look like.
Neverthless, I would argue that language is a basic ontological category. In the same way that minds are. Not all basic ontological categories must be basic in the same way as matter or space is. What is basic about it is that it is very different in kind from the others listed above.
- 47,073
- 14
- 93
- 243