Individualism (Philosophy of Language) Language

Individualism (Philosophy of Language)

Language is the most important communication tools that humans use in their relationship with their fellow humans. On the other hand, the word, as the fundamental and primordial element of communication, is not only a mean of connection between individuals, but also a way of expression and of philosophical interpretation. Given this, it is natural to ask ourselves whether there are several ways in which a message (and by message I am referring to a collection of words) can be interpreted and how this affects the actual meaning of the word.

The easiest way to define the intrinsic meaning of a word would be to relate it to its definition. According to Higginbotham and his "Elucidation of meaning," "there still may be a place in lexical semantics for some contribution of definitions to meaning." Following on Higginbotham's explanation, there are several further elucidations that need to be interpreted.

The first thing that comes to mind would be whether or not a definition of a word or term is identical with the meaning of that respective term. From a philosophical perspective, this cannot be so. First of all, the definition of a term is a mean by which a word is described. There is no philosophical certitude that the respective definition of a term covers all the characteristics of the word. It simply may be that some of these are left out or that the definition covers the term only from a certain perspective.

On the other hand, we need to refer to the subjectivism of the person or institution that gives the definition. For example, a lawyer would give a different definition of the word property than an economist, simply because he will present a legal perspective rather than an economical one. Nevertheless, both definitions are correct and both definitions cover the term from a certain point-of-view. On the other hand, we cannot state that the definition given by the lawyer is equivalent to the meaning of the word property, because some of the aspects are not taken into consideration.

This brings us to Tyler Burge's description of interpretation based on social usage and on his famous example with Bert and his arthritis, which we should shortly describe here below.

Bert believes he has arthritis in his thigh. Our first stop should be made here, as we investigate from an interpretational and philosophical perspective what his perception relies on. In my opinion, there are two different sides to be taken into consideration. First of all, Bert relates the term with (a) a series of symptoms he has in his thigh, symptoms which he knows are provoked from arthritis, because he has had arthritis in his knuckles for some time and (b) a series of characteristics of arthritis he is familiar with (it tends to get worse in cold weather and it often occurs in the case of older persons, like he is).

However, as I have previously mentioned when discussing Higginbotham's explanations on the elucidation of meaning, a definition is not enough to cover all relevant aspects that a specific term would include. In this case, a definition of arthritis, from Bert's perspective ("a physical problem with articulations, occurring in persons aged 55 and over, aggravated by bad weather," with some additional physical manifestations that would concur with Bert's problems) would not cover a very important aspect: arthritis does not occur in the thigh and it only affects the joints.

The relevant scientific information that arthritis does not occur in the thigh can only be provided by a specialist, hence a doctor. Following Higginbotham, we still need to point out that the doctor's additional information provided is not necessarily enough to circumscribe the entire sphere that would define the term arthritis. Indeed, a gerontologist may point out towards the fact that arthritis occurs only up to the age of 70 and from that time forward it transforms into a different disease, which is referred to as parthritis. Parthritis would thus carry only parts of Bert's description of the term and would constitute itself as a new term containing all the relevant characteristics of arthritis, with some additional ones.

This is the point where Burge introduces a second situation: Bert lives in a world in which he "proceeds from birth through the same course of physical events that he actually does, right to and including the time at which he first reports his fear to his doctor," but the term arthritis can be used to describe inflammations that occur outside the joints as well. According to Burge, if Bert would speak of arthritis in the thigh he would, in this case, express a true belief, because the term itself would be used in his society to express inflammations in the thigh and in the joints.

The social interpretation described by Burge is meant to explain terms that have a certain perception in a certain society. We would be inclined to believe that a tribal organization in Africa may refer to arthritis as a disease describing pains in the chest and that the term would have this connotation in that respective society. A member of that society would refer to his chest pains as arthritis and would express a true belief, according to the social theory.

On the other hand, it seems legitimate to ask ourselves whether the social and societal explanation may turn away from an absolute truth, in the sense of an absolute definition of a term.

In my opinion, the individualists have attempted to solve this problem by introducing the individual (or rather the individual perception) rather than the society as the center element around which the definition of a term revolves.

The different forms of individualism, among them ascriptional individualism and methodological individualism refer to the meanings of one's terms as being, in both cases, independent of how other members of society use the term. The second form of individualism refers to building the meaning of a term on the facts about one's self. In this sense, the individual perception becomes the key analysis variable by which a term is defined.

Upon referring to the meanings of a term from a social and from and individual point-of-view, it is important to decide how these two interpretational hypostases concur to generally produce the meaning of a certain term.

It is not different to discern between different situations. For example, some meanings, definitions or norms are defined by institutions and can bear no individual interpretation. The term property is referred to as property, no matter whether from a legal or economical perspective. If I refer to property as ytreporp, the legal or economical value of the term will be lost. Certainly, in this case I will still retail the individual value of the term, as it will still mean property from my point-of-view, but it will lose its social impact.