Philosophy Now Forum

Audrey Borowski follows the twists of a German Romantic linguistic turn.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/He ... Disclosure

I am trying to understand this business of language having an influence in our perception of the world and the idea of it creating parallel worlds.

This article infers that languages don't have any transcendental powers. So, then, what is the point of language if it hasn't helped to overcome and unite the peoples of the world, which has been the reason of History. It just goes to show that Kant was theoretically right about experience over language, that experience is the ultimate in bringing about a meaningful and just world.

Does the dominance of English in the world dispute the claims of Herder, Humboldt and Heidegger? I think so. English has been a transcendental language, unlike German. English has been the language of Democracy and the Industrial Revolution. The rest of the world has mostly tried to emulate the English speaking world, not because of language but because of the positive experiences that English has wrought.

English has facilitated the standardization of the world. It is a progressive language, unlike all the others. Its nature best reflects the disposition of the majority of the world, which wants to be open and accommodating.

Then we have the language of Vladimir Putin, Russian, which seems to be about autocracy, corruption and orthodoxy. But it's not really the language talking. It's the user of the language.

Since I haven't read this article you refer to I can't comment on what it says. However the Idea behind the view that English is a "transcendental" language eludes me. In what way is it transcendental?

English as a dominant language came about for a number of reasons, democracy may have been the least of it. Other languages to begin with may have had equal opportunities to become the virtual lingua franca of the world had their histories been somewhat different.

1 - Due to the British Empire especially during the Victorian period spreading itself all over the world English naturally gained eminence from conquest and colonization.

2 - That legacy of history and language passed to the next greater power even before the British Empire was officially defunct.

3 - After the end of WW2, the U.S. became the greatest economic and military power on the planet all summed up in global political power which includes the language of business.

4 - Home computers, operating systems, the internet, etc, were almost completely centered in America again advancing English even more.

5 - The U.S. was also the greatest media empire of it's time. Virtually everyone wanted to see American movies and Hollywood was where they made them. Ironically, Hollywood in all its glory was established mostly by Germans and other Europeans who fled the Nazis. This is a quote by Otto Preminger to a group of Hungarian emigres, "Don't you guys know you're in Hollywood? Speak German!". And then there's Disneyland, etc. In any event, the U.S. was by far, and to a great extent still is, the greatest entertainment and media capital on the planet.

There's more to say but these are the bare outlines of what made English into what it is, a matter of history and not anything specifically inherent in the language itself.

spike wrote: This article infers that languages don't have any transcendental powers. So, then, what is the point of language if it hasn't helped to overcome and unite the peoples of the world, which has been the reason of History.

History is mostly about politics, wars and power struggles the chronicles of which are mostly written by its successful protagonists, then and now. Within the context of history, language was never meant or intended 'to overcome and unite the peoples of the world' which would require ONE language as the primary mode of communication. Not Likely!

Dubious wrote: English as a dominant language came about for a number of reasons, democracy may have been the least of it. Other languages to begin with may have had equal opportunities to become the virtual lingua franca of the world had their histories been somewhat different.

1 - Due to the British Empire especially during the Victorian period spreading itself all over the world English naturally gained eminence from conquest and colonization.

2 - That legacy of history and language passed to the next greater power even before the British Empire was officially defunct.

3 - After the end of WW2, the U.S. became the greatest economic and military power on the planet all summed up in global political power which includes the language of business.

4 - Home computers, operating systems, the internet, etc, were almost completely centered in America again advancing English even more.

5 - The U.S. was also the greatest media empire of it's time. Virtually everyone wanted to see American movies and Hollywood was where they made them. Ironically, Hollywood in all its glory was established mostly by Germans and other Europeans who fled the Nazis. This is a quote by Otto Preminger to a group of Hungarian emigres, "Don't you guys know you're in Hollywood? Speak German!". And then there's Disneyland, etc. In any event, the U.S. was by far, and to a great extent still is, the greatest entertainment and media capital on the planet.

There's more to say but these are the bare outlines of what made English into what it is, a matter of history and not anything specifically inherent in the language itself.

spike wrote: This article infers that languages don't have any transcendental powers. So, then, what is the point of language if it hasn't helped to overcome and unite the peoples of the world, which has been the reason of History.

History is mostly about politics, wars and power struggles the chronicles of which are mostly written by its successful protagonists, then and now. Within the context of history, language was never meant or intended 'to overcome and unite the peoples of the world' which would require ONE language as the primary mode of communication. Not Likely!

I can understand why you picked the name Dubious

Thank you for a very intelligent reply. If there are some things you disagree with why not simply point it out?

I find it odd, if a little predicable that Spike dissociates German as a language of democracy as if English were somehow magically designed to offer it to the world. Hint: The German states had a range of states and complex systems of democracy to ensure unification. And Hitler was certainly able to mobile the democratic systems to gain power. WW2 was an interruption to most democracy, not an indication that there was none.
Maybe he ought to consider the historical facts? He might also want to look at French, Greek (giving us the concept from ancient Athens) and Norse (Iceland having given us the earliest modern democracy). Oh and Dutch which was hosted by Europe's most tolerant land liberal country right back to the 16thC.

No English was the language of empire, and religious indoctrination, long before democracy became a possibility to many subjected people

In practical terms though it was the Lex Brittanica that enabled Gandhi to mobilise political resistance first in S Africa and then in India by protecting the rights of people to protest and enjoy legal protection.
There is something in this. beyond that it is a co-incidence of the empire, not the fact of it that post colonial countries have modelled their fledgling democracies in the language of English, not some deep fact about English itself.
For example, try as they might the USA was unlikely to have used French when they have a perfectly good Englishman Thomas Paine to design their democracy for them.

Dubious wrote:Thank you for a very intelligent reply. If there are some things you disagree with why not simply point it out?

Okay, I disagree with your idea that English has had little to do with the development of democracy. I mean, English itself is a democratic language. Writers in other languages tell me that its open to everybody and flexible in its use. It is not afraid to adopt from other languages. It doesn't remain rigid or closed like so many other languages do. It's constantly evolving. And from History I see that the development of the two have paralleled each other; as English colonized the world democracy wasn't far behind. Moreover, the language of the major victors of both world wars were English speaking, victors who practiced democracy.

English also has been the connecting link between other languages. It is the main language in commerce and communications. And as though by some inherent disposition English has most encourage the ideas of transparency and accountability.

Germany did have its democratic moments. But obviously democracy wasn't intrenched enough in the German state to prevent an individual like Hitler from hijack the process. Also, German seemed to be more the language of follow the leader. English and it practitioners have always been more disrespectful of authority.

The topic of the post is the "Language As World-Disclosure". I think you guys have strayed off topic. The main thing I disagree with is that language, according to the article, is more the disclosure of the world than experience. I don't see the special powers of language that Herder, Humboldt or Heidegger.

I am thinking that philosophy is more the disclosure of the world than language. However, you need language to relate philosophy. So maybe we should be arguing about what combination of language and philosophy has best disclosed and then organized the world. I would have to say it is English.

This post is so illogical, nonsensical and anti-historical one doesn't know where to begin. Statements like these only confirm that philosophy forums are nothing more than lavatories for public opinion where ONLY opinions count no matter how ignorant and facts be damned.

This one is especially outstanding:

Also, German seemed to be more the language of follow the leader. English and it practitioners have always been more disrespectful of authority.

...and this one:

And as though by some inherent disposition English has most encourage(d) the ideas of transparency and accountability.

This is a counter quote by a Brit, Peter Watson:

The United States and Great Britain may speak English but more than they know they think German.

There's a huge history behind this statement by Watson.

Anyways, there's no further point in debating. That would be like trying to raise a sunken ship that's filled with lead instead of silver.

The United States and Great Britain may speak English but more than they know they think German.

I don't disagree with that. It reflects the paradoxically nature of the whole thing. England and Germany have there conflicting philosophers, The Germans Hegel and the English Locke. The general philosophy of Hegel was about the group, Locke's focused more on the individual.

We live in both worlds.

Heidegger held that language, by ‘instituting being’, defined reality.

I get it now. It is a narrow vision of reality Heidegger is talking about. It is a personal, subjective reality. Language certainly doesn't represent the larger reality of the world since language is just a local entity, expressing only local existence.

Languages in themselves aren't transcendental. Therefore, on their own they are incapable of disclosing the full scope of the world. Languages can only express partial reality.

The philosophy of language just adds another wrinkle to the debate about whether reality is subjective or objective. But languages alone do not disclose the complete reality of the World. At best they expresses a personal reality or experience.

Hegel argued that one of the drivers of History is our struggle for freedom and recognition. Language is one of the ways we do that and express our independence. Hence the struggles we have seen in the Canadian Provence of Quebec and in the Basque region of Spain, to preserve their cultures, which includes the preservation of their respective languages.

And then there is the subcategories of languages, their dialects, which express a deeper sense of personal, local reality.