Non-Propositional Language

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein says, “The totality of propositions is the language” (Prop. 4). But it may be argued, to the contrary, that language does not consist exclusively of propositions, and that language includes both propositional and non-propositional expressions (take, for example, emotive expressions that express feelings or emotions, but not propositions).
      Interjections such as “Oops!”, “Holy cow!”, and “Wow!” may be examples of non-propositional expressions. Such expressions may be meaningful without being true or false.
      Non-propositional speech-acts include rote recitations of numbers, times, and dates, repetitions of filler words or phrases such as "uh" and "y'know what I mean," conventional greetings such as “Hello” and “Good morning,” expletives such as "Gee whiz!" and “Damn!", and questions such as “How are you?” and “What is that?”.¹

     Can language be meaningful without expressing propositional attitudes or having a propositional content?
      While propositional attitudes² such as believing, knowing, hoping, desiring, fearing, or remembering that p (where p is a proposition) take a stand or have a bearing as to whether p is or is not the case (or as to whether p ought to or ought not to be the case), non-propositional attitudes take no such stand and have no such bearing. Are there indeed such non-propositional attitudes? Are all cognitive attitudes propositional in form and content?
      Is all thinking propositional in nature? If not, then is there some non-propositional language capable of expressing non-propositional thought? Can linguistic signs or symbols express purely intuitive or non-conceptual thinking? 

      Consider Russell’s example of a non-denoting phrase, “the present king of France.”³ If the sentence, “The present king of France is bald,” is neither true nor false because the phrase “the present king of France” doesn’t denote or refer to anything, then the sentence doesn't express a proposition. But isn’t the sentence still in some way meaningful? Isn’t the sentence a counter-example to Wittgenstein’s thesis that “The totality of propositions is the language”?

      

FOOTNOTES

¹Chris Code, “Speech Automatism and Recurring Utterances,” in The Characteristics of Aphasia, edited by Chris Code (Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991), p. 158.

²Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth [1940] (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962), p. 18.

³Bertrand Russell, “On Denoting,” in Mind, 14 (1905): 479-493.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1922], translated by C.K. Ogden (Mineola: Dover Publications, 1999).

Recommended Philosophy Videos

Linda Martín Alcoff, 2012 Presidential Address, APA, Eastern Division

Mark Alfano and Abrol Fairweather, on virtue epistemology

Mark Alfano, "The Logic of Communities of Trust"

Danielle Allen, "Education and Equality"

Corey Anton, "Some Basic Characteristics of Language"

Corey Anton, "Language, Thought & Time"

Corey Anton, "Defining Language? Please Respond"

Corey Anton, "Boundaries between Books and Minds"

Corey Anton, "On Being a Reader"

John Berger and Susan Sontag, "To Tell a Story"

Elizabeth Camp, "Footnotes, Asides, and Talking Under the Table"

James Cargile, "Philosophy of Logic"

Carneades.org
  The Euthyphro Dilemma
  The Gettier Problem
  In Defense of the Gettier Problem
  Properties of Relations
  Mereology
  Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
  Russell's Paradox
  De Re vs De Dicto Distinction
  Syntactically De Re vs Syntactically De Dicto
  Semantically De Re vs Semantically De Dicto
  Modally De Re vs Modally De Dicto
  Propositional and Categorical Logic
  Symbols and Terms (Predicate Calculus)
  Bayesian Epistemology
  Bayes' Theorem and the Monty Hall Fallacy

Mazviita Chirimuuta, "Color in the Scientific Image"
 
Stephen Darwall, "Making the "Hard" Problem of Moral Normativity Easier"

Jacques Derrida, "What Comes Before the Question?"

Robin DiAngelo, "Deconstructing White Privilege"

Ronald Dworkin, "Law and Political Morality"

John David Ebert, "Schelling's First Outline of a System of the Philosophy of Nature"

Miranda Fricker, "Moral Philosophy"

Helen Frowe, "Reductive Individualism and the Just War Framework"

Paul Fry, "Introduction to Theory of Literature"
    1.  Introduction
    2.  Introduction (cont.)
    3.  Ways In and Out of the Hermeneutic                  Circle
    4.  Configurative Reading
    5.  The Idea of the Autonomous Artwork
    6.  The New Criticism and Other Western                  Formalisms
    7.  Russian Formalism
    8.  Semiotics and Structuralism
    9.  Linguistics and Literature
    10. Deconstruction I
    11. Deconstruction II
    12. Freud and Fiction
    13. Jacques Lacan in Theory
    14. Influence
    15. The Postmodern Psyche
    16. The Social Permeability of Reader and                Text
    17. The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory
    18. The Political Unconscious
    19. The New Historicism
    20. The Classical Feminist Tradition
    21. African-American Criticism
    22. Post-Colonial Criticism
    23. Queer Theory and Gender Performativity
    24. The Institutional Construction of Literary               Study
    25. The End of Theory? Neo-Pragmatism
    26. Reflections; Who Doesn't Hate Theory                 Now?

Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, "The Subject of Language"

Julia Galef, "What is 'Rationality'?"

Julia Galef, "The Sunk Costs Fallacy"

Christopher Gauker, on Language, Meaning, and Logic

Tamar Gendler and Eric Schwitzgebel, on implicit associations and belief

Dana Gioia, "What is Poetry? 10 Observations about the Art"

Elizabeth Grosz, Keynote Address at the 2007 Feminist Theory Workshop

Isabelle Hamley, "Luce Irigaray"

Thich Nhat Hanh, "What is Nirvana?"

Sally Haslanger, "What is a Social Practice?"

Sarah Hentges, "Understanding Race and Ethnicity, Racism, Oppression, and Privilege"

Karen Kilby, "The Seductions of Kenosis"

Jennifer Lackey, "The Prison Education Paradox"  

Lama Jampa Thaye, "Parting from the Four Attachments"

Lama Jampa Thaye, "Parting from the Four Attachments: Part 1"

Lama Jampa Thaye: "Parting from the Four Attachments: Part 2"

Lama Jampa Thaye: "Parting from the Four Attachments: Part 3"

Lama Jampa Thaye: "Parting from the Four Attachments: Part 4"

Lama Jampa Thaye, "Taking Refuge: Becoming a Buddhist"

Lama Jampa Thaye, "The Bodhisattva Vow: Entering the Mahayana"

Lama Jampa Thaye, "Clarifying the Vajrayana"

Annabelle Lever, on "Greening Humanity"

Jennifer McWeeny, "Feminist Ontology for the Twenty-First Century"

Charles Mills, "Does Race Exist?"

Charles Mills, "Liberalism and Racial Justice"

Jennifer Nagel, "Epistemic Territory in Conversation"

Jennifer Nagel, "Closure and Defeat"

Derek Parfit, Full Address to the Oxford Union Society (2015)

Authors@Google: Steven Pinker

Alvin Plantinga, "What are Possible Worlds?"

Thomas Pogge, "Global Justice: What are the Responsibilities of Citizens?"

Ryan Preston-Roedder, "Three Varieties of Faith"

Michael Puett, "On Zhuangzi in Relation to Confucius"

Avital Ronell, in "Examined Life" (2008)

Avital Ronell, "The Telephone Book @ 25"
                         
Thomas Scanlon, "Ethics of Blame"

John Searle, interviewed by Bryan Magee, on the Philosophy of Language: Section 1

John Searle, interviewed by Bryan Magee, on the Philosophy of Language: Section 2

John Searle, interviewed by Bryan Magee, on the Philosophy of Language: Section 3

John Searle, interviewed by Bryan Magee, on the Philosophy of Language, Section 4

John Searle, interviewed by Bryan Magee, on the Philosophy of Language, Section 5

Galen Strawson, "What is the Subject-Experience-Content Identity Thesis?"

David Thorstad, "Inquiry Under Bounds"

John Turri, "Virtue Epistemology & Intellectual Character"

Shannon Vallor, "AI and the Shrinking Space of Moral Reasons"

Kevin Vanhoozer, "The Turn to Drama: A Proposal for a Sapiential Apologetics"

Jennifer Lisa Vest, "Gyeke. Akan Concept of a Person"

Jennifer Lisa Vest, "Hume. The Idea of the Self," part 1

Jennifer Lisa Vest, "Hume. The Idea of the Self." part 2

Edmond Wright, "Narrative, Perception, Language, and Faith"

Natalie Wynn, "A Transgender Woman Artfully Answers 'Critical Feminist' Questions About Transpeople"

George Yancy, "Ferris Reynolds Lecture"

Naomi Zack, "Applicative Justice, Race, and Mixed Race"

Linda Zagzebski, "Ancient Greek Virtue Ethics"

Nicolai Hartmann's Outlines of a Metaphysics of Knowledge

Nicolai Hartmann’s Outlines of a Metaphysics of Knowledge (Grundzüge einer Metaphysik der Erkenntnis, 1921) is perhaps his most important work in the field of epistemology. It was published early in his career, when he was teaching at the University of Marburg (where he was a professor from 1922-1925), and it describes the relation between epistemology and ontology. It has not, as of 2013, been published in English.

      In the Metaphysics, Hartmann describes four different sides to the problem of knowledge: (1) the psychological, (2) the logical, (3) the ontological, and (4) the gnoseological. The first two sides constitute the non-metaphysical side of the problem of knowledge, while the last two constitute the metaphysical side of the problem of knowledge. The first three constitute the “wider problem of knowledge,” while the last one constitutes the “narrower problem of knowledge.”

      The metaphysical side of knowledge is also metapsychological and metalogical in orientation, and thus it is closely connected to the non-metaphysical side of knowledge.¹

      The psychological side of knowledge is represented by the fact that knowledge may be described as a psychological process or event. A knowing subject, just as much as a known object, is essential to any act of knowledge. But just as psychology adheres to the side of the subject, so does logic adhere to the side of the object.² Just as psychology is concerned with a psychological event or process in the subject, so is logic concerned with the logical contents or structure of the object. Thus, the logical side of knowledge is represented by the fact that knowledge has an objective and not merely subjective character.³

      Psychologism may be described as a tendency to see all knowledge as dependent on, or explicable in terms of, psychological events or processes, while logicism may be described as a tendency to see all knowledge as dependent on, or explicable in terms of, logical relations. Hartmann argues that both psychologism and logicism, because of their inability to address important ontological and gnoseological questions, may lead to misunderstanding of the problem of knowledge.

      According to Hartmann, the problem of knowledge is inseparable from the phenomenon of knowledge, and thus the aporetics of knowledge can only be fully illuminated by investigation of the phenomenology of knowledge. The analysis of the problem of knowledge goes hand in hand with the analysis of the phenomenon of knowledge. Since the “narrower problem of knowledge” is also inseparable from the problem of being, epistemology may be inseparable from both phenomenology and ontology.

      The phenomenology of knowledge may define the relation between the knower and the known, and between the subject and object of knowledge. In the relation of knowledge (Erkenntnisrelation), as long as the object is independent of the subject and of the subject’s knowing, the object may be said to have a being-in-itself (Ansichsein).⁴ The object is inseparable from the subject only insofar as it is known or knowable. As long as it has a being-in-itself, the object is indifferent toward its objectification or objectifiability.⁵

      Similarly, the subject in the relation of knowledge has a being-in-itself and does not simply merge into being a subject for an object. The subject’s being-in-itself is initially only a gnoseological one, but it becomes a psychological, logical, and ontological one as well.⁶

      The form of the object in the consciousness of the subject is determined by the subject’s grasping (or knowing) of the object. The determinations of the object that lie within the consciousness of the subject are those that are graspable or knowable by the subject. Those that lie outside the (floating) boundary of objectification or knowledge constitute the “transobjective,” and those that lie outside the boundary of objectifiability or knowability constitute the “irrational” or “transintelligible.”⁷

      The “transsubjective” is analogous to the “transobjective” in the relation of knowledge. Just as the object of knowledge never merges into being merely an object for a subject and always has a being-in-itself, so also does the subject always in some way subsist independently as that which is in-itself.

      The aporetics of knowedge arise from the “general aporia of knowledge,” from which in turn arise six other aporias: (1) the aporia of perception and givenness, (2) the aporia of a priori knowledge, (3) the aporia of the criterion of knowledge, (4) the aporia of the problem of consciousness, (5) the aporia of the progress of knowledge, and (6) the aporia of being (the ontological aporia behind the gnoseological aporia).

      The general aporia of knowledge arises from the dynamic and changing opposition of subject and object. This opposition is reflected by such questions as: What kind of relation can exist between the subject and object, if they transcend each other by subsisting independently outside of their relation? From what source comes to the originally separated subject and object the unity that is posited in their relation as knower and known? How is such a relation possible? Does the phenomenon of knowledge emerge from the transcendence of subject and object, or does the transcendence of subject and object emerge from the phenomenon of knowledge?⁸

      The aporia of perception and givenness is reflected by such questions as: If an object must somehow be given to a perceiving subject in order for its properties to be known by the subject, then how can it be given to the subject if it transcends the subject and the relation of knowledge? —Either its givenness must be merely appearance or its transcendence must be merely appearance.⁹

      The aporia of a priori knowledge is reflected by such questions as: How can it be that for aprioristic knowledge only logical-immanent and ideal forms of essence are given to knowing consciousness, and that these forms of essence are indifferent to the real essence of the actual?  How can that which is grasped as ideal essence be indifferent to the real essence that transcends it? This indifference, according to Hartmann, is the focal point of the problem of transcendent apriority.¹⁰ Immanent apriority, or aprioristic knowledge of ideal objects, depends on the intersubjective identity of categories of knowledge and categories of being, but transcendent apriority, or aprioristic knowledge of real objects, depends on the transcendent identity of categories of knowledge and categories of being.¹¹
      The aporia of the criterion of knowledge is reflected by such questions as: How can the perceiving subject know whether the immanent form of the object in consciousness corresponds to the transcendent object? If the subject can only determine whether the immanent form of the object corresponds to other immanent forms and cannot determine whether the immanent form corresponds to the transcendent object, then there may be no valid criterion of knowledge. 

      The aporia of the problem of consciousness is expressed by such questions as: How is knowledge possible of that which is unknown? How can objectification of the “transobjective” occur, without the latter as such being abolished?¹²

      The aporia of the progress of knowledge is reflected by such questions as: From knowledge that something is unknown, how can positive knowledge of that thing be attained?  From inadequate knowledge of an object, how can we arrive at adequate knowledge of that object?

      The aporia of being is expressed by such questions as: What is the ontological relation behind the gnoseological relation of knower and known? What is “that which is” (Seinde), insofar as it is independent of all knowability? What is the positive meaning of the “transintelligible”?

      Hartmann distinguishes between the “transintelligible” and the “mystical” by saying that the "mystical" can be an object of revelation, intuition, and ecstatic apprehension.¹³ The "mystical" is therefore knowable, even though it may not be completely understood. The “transintelligible,” on the other hand, is incapable of being objectified, and is unknowable.

 FOOTNOTES

¹Nicolai Hartmann, Grundzüge einer Metaphysik der Erkenntnis (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1921), p. 11.

²Ibid., p. 19.

³Ibid., p. 19.

⁴Ibid., pp. 39-40.

⁵Ibid., p. 40.

⁶Ibid., p. 41.

⁷Ibid., p. 47.

⁸Ibid., p. 49.

⁹Ibid., p. 51.
¹⁰Ibid., pp. 52-53.

¹¹Ibid., p. 286.

¹²Ibid., p. 53.

¹³Ibid., p. 57.

Philosophy from the Margins

To do philosophy from the margins is not to do merely marginal philosophy or to be concerned with merely marginal philosophical problems. It is not to promote the marginal as an end in itself or to be concerned with merely the margins, limits, or boundaries of philosophy.

      It is not to propose philosophical arguments that have merely marginal or questionable relevance and validity. It is not to behave unconventionally merely in order to explore the margins or test the limits of socially acceptable behavior.

      It is not to merely express disaffection or alienation from society. It is not to adopt some form of radical or extremist ideology.

      It is rather to stand outside the philosophical mainstream and to engage in philosophy from the standpoint of a person who has been marginalized. It is also to examine the implicit assumptions of mainstream philosophy, and to evaluate their rationality, justifiability, and validity.

      To do philosophy from the margins is to have been barred or excluded in one way or another from a conventional position of speakership within philosophy. It is to have been compelled to accept some marginalized status or form of postponed participation with regard to philosophical discourse.

      Must “philosophy from the margins” necessarily address the needs and concerns of those who have been marginalized? Is claiming to be marginalized something that is empty of meaning, by virtue of the fact that almost everyone can claim to have been marginalized in one way or another?

      Who exactly are the marginalized in our society? Who marginalizes whom? In what way do people marginalize those whom they do not want to recognize or engage in dialogue with?

      To do philosophy from the margins may be to recognize the diverse viewpoints of, and to examine the problems that are relevant to, those who have been marginalized, forgotten, displaced, or dispossessed by society. It may be to encourage social equity and to promote the eradication of distinctions between insiders and outsiders.

      Philosophy from the margins may also reveal the centrality of the marginal and the marginality of the central. It may question or destabilize the meanings of centrality and marginality, and it may allow their interdependence to be recognized.

      To do philosophy from the margins may be to record one’s thoughts in the margins of a philosophical text (or in the margins of a text that has philosophical implications). It may be to inscribe a text with one’s own philosophical thoughts and reflections. It may be to record one’s own observations on, or interpretation of, a text, and to become the author of a commentary on the text. It may be to identify whatever is noteworthy in a text and to engage in dialogue with that text.

      Doing philosophy from the margins may also mean recognizing the occurrence of epistemological thresholds, limits, breaks, and discontinuities. It may mean resisting the pressure to conform to traditional methods of reading, understanding, and problem solving.

       It may mean a concern with boundary objects, boundary concepts, boundary conditions, and boundary questions. It may mean an exploration of the horizons of being, time, space, existence, consciousness, and experience. It may also mean an investigation of the limits of thought, reason, emotion, discourse, and language.

Some Propositions Concerning Epistemic Ground, Warrant, and Justification

Despite the limitations of “S knows that p” epistemology, it may be worthwhile to examine some basic “S knows that p" propositions in order to try to clarify the relations between epistemic ground, justification, and warrant.  Such an examination may also help to delineate some of the controversies regarding the relations between epistemic ground, justification, and warrant. Thus, some basic “S believes that p” or "S knows that p" propositions are:

      1. Even if there is sufficient reason (or there are sufficient grounds) for S to believe that p, p may still be false. (Although it may be argued, to the contrary, that if there are sufficient grounds for S to believe that p, then p must be true.)

      2. If there is sufficient reason (or there are sufficient grounds) for S to believe that p, then S may be justified in believing that p. (Although it may be argued, to the contrary, that the justification for a belief cannot be provided solely by the grounds for that belief, and that a belief must not only have sufficient grounds, but also be true in order to be justified.)

      3. If S believes that p, but p is false, then S’s belief is unwarranted. (Although it may be argued, to the contrary, that warrant may be defined in such a way that all warranted beliefs do not necessarily have to be true. For example, Kent Bach (1996) explains that one way of defining warrant may be to say that warranted beliefs are those beliefs that, if true, are not accidentally true.¹)     

      4. S’s believing p at a given time t may be justified on the basis of the evidence available to S at t, but that act of belief may turn out to be unwarranted if the evidence available to S at t is incomplete or contradicted by further evidence that may or may not have been available to S at t. (Although it may be argued, to the contrary, that S was not justified in believing p at t if that act of belief is later found to be unwarranted or to have been based on insufficient evidence that p.)

      5. If S has sufficient grounds for believing that p, then that belief may be justified.

      6. A sufficient reason or ground for a belief may constitute (or be taken as) a sufficient justification for that belief.

      7. The grounds for a belief may provide the justification for that belief. (Although in order for S herself to feel justified in believing p, S herself may have to judge the grounds for believing p to be sufficient.)

      8. S’s belief that p may, in fact, be fully or merely partially justified or warranted.

      9. If S’s belief that p is, in fact, fully justified or warranted, then that belief takes fully into account, and is fully supported by, the evidence that p (if an evidentialist theory of justification or warrant is proposed or accepted).

      10. The reasons or grounds for S’s believing that p at t may be logical, epistemic, moral, religious, and/or psychological.

      11. As shown by Edmund Gettier (1963), in cases where S believes that p, and S’s belief happens accidentally to be true and to be justified because of circumstances unknown to S, that belief, although true and justified, cannot properly be said to constitute knowledge that p.²

       12. If S believes that p, then that belief is warranted if (1) it is justified, (2) p actually holds, and (3) the justification for the belief cannot be questioned or refuted by the kinds of arguments provided by Gettier cases.³ However, it may be argued that there may always be exceptions to this set of conditions, involving warranted beliefs not covered by this theory or by some other similar theory of warrant.

      13. If S knows that p and also knows that q, then S knows that p (and that q). However, from S’s knowing that p and that q, it does not follow that S knows that p and q. That is to say, from S’s knowing that p and q hold independently, it does not follow that S knows that p and q hold conjointly (nor does it follow that p and q actually do hold conjointly).

      14. Prop. 13 may be stated negatively as: If S does not know that p and also does not know that q, then p knows neither that p nor that q.

      15. From S’s knowing that p, it does not follow that either S knows that p or S knows that q (because both consequents could hold). Nor does it follow that S knows that p or q (because from S's knowing that p, it does not follow that S knows that p or q hold disjunctively, nor does it follow that they actually do hold disjunctively).

FOOTNOTES

¹Kent Bach, “Accidental Truth and Would-be Knowledge,” Philosophical Quarterly, 198 (1996), 183-190. Online at http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/accidtruth.html.

²Edmund Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” in Analysis, 23 (1963), 121-123. 

³Fred Dretske, “Gettier and Justified True Belief: Fifty Years On,” in The Philosophers Magazine (July 9, 2013), online at http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1171.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Alston, William P. “The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification,” in Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2, Epistemology (1988), pp. 257-299.

Merricks, Trenton. “Warrant Entails Truth,” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55 (1995): 841-855.

Merricks, Trenton. “More on Warrant’s Entailing Truth,” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57 (1997), 627-631.

Ryan, Sharon. “Does Warrant Entail Truth?” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. LVI, No. 1, March 1996, pp. 183-192.

Zagzebski, Linda. “The Inescapability of Gettier Problems,” in The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 174, (Jan., 1994), pp. 65-73.