Thanks for all the comments thus far. The following is an outline to indicate roughly where I’m coming from—
I. Propositional thought.
All of this I intend to apply only to what I’ll call “propositional” thought and speech—that thinking where we are trying to develop and express truth claims. Poetry, for example, need not be sensible at all in order to evoke an intended feeling via the musicality of language (such as “Jabberwocky” ).
II. Senseless versus sensible, but just wrong.
A senseless statement, or a senseless thought, is different from one that is simply wrong.
“The wind started to blow, then it blew for awhile, then the wind stopped blowing.”
This statement, I suggest, is not senseless; it is just wrong. We have a clear sense of what it means to describe. But it is not strictly accurate (perhaps it can be taken as metaphorical): there is either wind or there is not. It is a sort of superstitious thinking to imagine that there is wind that may or may not “decide” to blow; perhaps it is thought expressed in that kind of language—unduly divorced from its intended “language game” (e.g., metaphor) that leads to ideas like the “wind spirit” or the “wind god”.
A potentially senseless statement (or thought):
“Outside of space nothing exists.”
If “outside” here means “other than” (a common, ordinary usage), then it may just be saying that (a) all existence is within spatial dimensionality, or (b) space is all that exists; the former is a sensible and perhaps correct statement, the latter is a sensible but likely incorrect statement.
However, if “outside space” is meant in its literal meaning, then the statement is strictly senseless—“outside” makes no sense except in terms of spatial dimensionality. There can be no “outside space”. It is a senseless thought.
Similarly, if “nothing exists” that there is a something called “nothing”—say, infinitely extended space—then it is senseless. If it is only a way of saying that no thing can exist other than spatially—i.e., that existence is per se spatial—then it might be wrong, but it is not senseless.
III. The grammatical seduction.
It seems that we can be seduced into thinking that we’re actually thinking (or saying) something that makes sense, because our thoughts or statements are grammatical. There was nothing ungrammatical about the thought, “Outside of space nothing exists”. Similarly, the following statement is perfectly grammatical, but senseless:
“Before there was any ‘before’, when there was no ‘when’, time had not yet begun.”
This sentence, as a propositional statement, is absolutely senseless. It is senseless in just the same way that the phrase “outside of space” is senseless. There can be no “outside” “outside of space”. There can be “before” before time; “before”—like “when” and “beginning” and ending” and “happening”, etc.—are all ideas that depend on time.
Why is this sentence senseless, and not just wrong? Because it expresses, not just a wrong or a right concept—but something that cannot even be tested for rightness or wrongness (truth or falsity) because it has no sense that could be tested. That is, there is no possible world in which it could makes sense. It is self-contradictory or incoherent to talk this way—or to think this way.
NOTE that I have simply substituted certain “time words” for the word time itself here, in order to highlight the nonsensicalness—to say that time “began” is just as senseless on it s face (“When did time begin?” )
Now, we might think that someone who spoke this way is just confused, or at least expressing herself in a confusing manner. To find out, we might ask questions to see she really has a sensible thought that she is just not getting out, or that her thinking is confused, but can be clarified.
NOTE: This does not just apply to others, but to ourselves. I bit of self-vigilance is required in order to make sure that we ourselves are making sense to ourselves, and not to be seduced by grammar.
IV. Bewitchment by language.
Being seduced by grammar into thinking that we are making sense (to ourselves as well as others) is an example of Wittgenstein called “bewitchment by language”—
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
—Wittgenstein
But it’s not just grammar that can seduce us into nonsensical thinking and speaking. Another quote from W.: “An inappropriate expression is a sure means of remaining stuck in confusion. It, as it were, bars the way out.” Or, to use Freaky’s term: we may end up misleading both ourselves and others.
Sometimes perfectly good expressions in one context (language game) can become senseless in another context (language game). This can happen, for example, when we try to apply language from the domain of the natural world to metaphysics. And I think, thus far, as I read Wittgenstein, that this is the locus of his main objection—that it is when we try to move beyond the limits of what we can “philosophize” (think) about coherently, then we can lapse into incoherence without realizing it.
For W., one has to analyze what language game is going on in order to say whether or not a statement makes sense. Sense (meaning) is context dependent. [Of course, I barred context from my opening “propositions”—but the very context of this forum comes into play.]
Again, thanks. I’ll make some responses to some of the posts, and then see where it goes. I want to stress that I am exploring this question myself, and am not sure that I am correct. Please take my “argument” more as questions that I am asking myself, but bouncing off all of you—drawing on the thoughts of the community so to speak.
Philosophical nonsense
27 May '11 06:43
Back to Top