Charles Peterson on the American philosopher Stanely Cavell (HT Andrew Sullivan):
Cavell’s larger argument is this: If we must bring the world with us to understand a definition, then we cannot define away the ambiguity in words, for the world we bring with us is already hopelessly ambiguous. Hence the force of Cavell’s at first glance profound but on closer inspection obscure question: “Must We Mean What We Say?” A philosopher who limits the meaning of her words to carefully set out definitions, attempting to root out all ambiguity, in effect says, “I say, and you should hear, only what I mean.” Cavell insists that language cannot be limited in this way. Language, to Cavell, is ambiguous not because it is imperfect, awaiting precise definition, but because we do not all see in the same way; it is a reflection of our basic predicament as distinct human beings. Thus, we must dare to mean what we say, take responsibility for all the meanings our words might be taken to have—even if those meanings go beyond what we understand as our intentions—because in our unintentional (though perhaps meaningful) slips, and the misapprehensions, mistakes, and insights of those with whom we speak, we bring together not just words but worldviews.
… Surrounded by certainty, he [Cavell] became an adept of what in philosophy is known as “skepticism.” This term goes back millennia, but it is closely related to the sense of fraudulence Cavell had experienced while young: the distrust of the reports of one’s peers; the doubt that what one does has any real connection to what one sees; the feeling, therefore (and here we reach full-blown skepticism), that one is only dreaming the world. Cavell insisted that this feeling, even if in its intensity it can seem unjustified, casts light back on its legitimate origins—that we never can be absolutely certain of ourselves or our relation to the world. Such certainty was exactly what the logical positivists had been trying to achieve. He therefore reinterpreted their philosophy: instead of an attempt to get closer to the world, their demand for certainty was a way of fleeing from the world in all its ambiguity. This was the sense in which their philosophy was fraudulent, and why it so repelled the young Cavell. Under the banner of getting closer to the world, the logical positivists moved further from the world than ever.
Categories: General
Thanks, David B., for following up on Doubt, sweet doubt. The following quote is really a goldmine for reflection:
We all airbrush ourselves, our neighbor, our history to achieve certainty. Its scary to dismantle cherished ideas, beloved constructs of how we think our world works. And, it often seems, our constructs have a built-in us vs. them dynamic.
There is much freedom in admitting, we just don’t know. Living with our cherished beliefs, and yet realizing some things just don’t fit, living with that tension (I believe you addressed this David as living in the struggle) frees one to listen to the other. At least for me.
This is a great quote, lots to think about. I like this recurring theme, David.
Along with what Teresa said, I noted in a different discussion here how the blogosphere and punditry seems to especially reward people who speak with absolute certainty and conviction. But, I see a certain freedom in admitting that we aren’t always certain. Although, it also seems that many people simply don’t know that they don’t know things.
Fannie, I agree that there is something about the blogosphere (maybe it’s the fact that it’s not face to face?) that encourages completely certain declarations — I’m sure you see this at Fannies Room as well (though perhaps feminist ethos pushes in a different direction at times?).
I think you’re quite right, Fannie. In the opinion world, a maybe this, maybe that opinion doesn’t get published. You have to have a clear, firm argument.
I’m no scholar of Faust. I stumbled on this and thought of your thread about doubt.
First part, I. Night
Faust: “I’ve studied now philosophy and jurisprudence, medicine, and even, alas!, theology From end to end…I stand no wiser than before: I’m magister…these ten years long…I’ve led my scholars by the nose–And see, that nothing can be known!
…Wherefore, from magic I seek assistance, through spirit-power and spirit-speech and thus the bitter task forego of saying the things I do not know That I may detect the inmost force which binds the world, and guides its course, Its germs, productive powers explore, and rummage in empty words no more!”
The blogosphere rewards inflammatory headlines because they get more page hits.
It rewards more inflammatory articles because people get mad and comment on them.
My hope is that eventually advertisers will realize that page hits and comments don’t necessarily mean you sell more. And maybe people will get bored of inflammatory headlines and articles.
Mark: Nice quote. It’s a form of romanticisim that I ultimately cannot accept, but there can be much loveliness in it. Here is Whitman:
I like your quote Mark. And I like this one especially:
“
David,
Faust gets at the same “problem” – which it is – from the side of frustration. Yes, doubt is the state of affairs. And the awareness of the limits of human knowledge is reached in Faust’s case (as an exemplar) after considerable efforts to acquire it. Resting in the sweetness of that discovery, however, is one step on the way. At some point our finite opinions and knowledge comes into play – it must – or a better knowledge. The romantic movement has many flaws but it has many seeds and possibilities. (The same is true of Christianity, btw.) I’m looking for whatever is good. Looking out for the world’s “productive powers” makes better sense than resting with empty knowing.
Karen,
Yes, well…the subject of the thought, the “we” is the key.
You know what it means when someone says that some word we all know does not “mean that to them”? It means they’re lying to you and have the balls to want you to not only drop the subject, but question your sanity as well.
There are millions of words in every language that describe the exact thing you want to describe. If you must make up a new word then fine Funk and Wagnle start from scratch – but don’t try and use a word that has a universally understood meaning and use it to describe something else entirely and expect the world not to see it as the bald face lie that it is.
Example “I thought you said you stayed home last night but Billy says he saw you at the Bar with Susan last night, you lied” “I did not lie I was joking you know I say the bar is my second home baby, why would I lie to you about where I was I have nothing to hide Susan’s just a friend”
If everyone got to make up their own definitions to words then it would cease to be a language. The whole point of language is that there are agreed upon meanings to the sounds that come out of our mouths and to the marks we make on paper.
For crying out loud of course there is a difference between fact and fiction. We all lie we all have our personal brand of situational ethics and we all to some extent will hang in there defending to the bitter end something we know is freaking absurd just to save face because most of the time people will just get too fed up to keep arguing truth and lies.
There is right and wrong in the world it is black and white. The shades of grey come in with how much compassion and understanding we are suppose to have for a person who does something wrong how much can we identify with what drove them to do it and also whether or not anyone was really compromised by them doing that wrong thing. But right and wrong is always there and we all know it. That is why its so frustrating to watch people trying to talk themselves into thinking what they are doing is acceptable. If you have to think about the ethics of an action its a sure bet that it’s not and you know it. That’s about the time people start carrying around their own special dictionaries to start their conversations. “now before I get started I just want to say that to many people a mother means this and to me it might mean that…” Ergo ipso facto therefore and henceforth and furthermore nevertheless anyone who raises a kid is a parent and anyone who does not is not. Its easier to erase history when the people making the kids are not parents because they are irrelevant so rewrite the meaning of the word.
I just mean you can try to erase history by redefining words and its just the very core of propaganda and false logic.