Understanding Language: The Fluidity of Meaning, Knowledge and the Relation to Objectivity
Trying to Make Sense of Meaning in Language and the Relationship to the Objective/Subjective Distinction
I have some slight familiarity with the topic, but slight is the operative word, so I had to use ChatGPT to research and ghostwrite the essay.
Author's Preface
Epistemological Uncertainties and the Blurring of Boundaries
Given the uncertainties of human knowledge, the epistemological doubts, I don't think it's tenable to draw a hard and fast line between objective and subjective, between fact and interpretation, between supposition and knowledge. It seems to me that they're very loose, the boundaries are blurry. Some people would put the boundaries in one place, some people would put them in another.
Individual Perspectives and Epistemological Flexibility
This is in line with what I've previously read and thought about. When I was in university, an undergrad, one of my professors, who was the professor for the history of psychology, implied that that she was gobsmacked in hearing that the subjective/objective distinction might be a poor one. I don't think she used that word, but that was the implication by something she just read, where some scholar, a psychologist, I assume, had argued that all knowledge is subjective. I have no idea who the author was, and I imagine my professor is long gone.
The Subjectivity of Knowledge and Measurement
I favour the view that here is no such thing as objective knowledge. I’m not sure I can make a really clear case for that though. Even if we're taking a measurement, it's subjective, depending on our own personal ability to do the measurement, our acuity, our ability to record it. All of these are subjective factors. I don't know that I'm making the case as well as would the anonymous psychologist. But maybe there's something to it; even things that seem to be objective require human interpretation.
The Human Mind as a Filter for Objective Facts
Think about measurements and experiments. They all result in processing through the human animal's mind before it can become public.
Well, I guess even the decision as to what to measure and how to do it and why to do it are not completely objective things, are they? I don't want to hang my hat entirely on that argument, but it seems to be a truth.
Difficulties with Understanding Phenomenology
Appearently the phenomenologists address some of these points. I've also tried to read The Phenomenalists. I probably tried to read Husserl. I tried to read Merleau-Ponte, numerous times. I found those people so cryptic, so hard to understand, I gave up, even though I had several of the phenomenologists' collections of readings. However, I couldn't make sense of them. Maybe it was because the translations were poor, or maybe just the way they expressed themselves that was so damn cryptic. I did get a more coherent explanation1 from ChatGPT 4.0 than I got the books of the phenomonolgists.
The Complexity of Language and Personal Interpretation
I am doing a series on language. Language shapes our perception of the world. And each person has their own idiosyncratic take on what words mean and how they apply to the world. And that surely means that if we're using language, we can never be purely objective because each person carries within themselves their own little idiosyncratic world of language. So, I think that to understand the objective/subjective issue, we need to address language, for surely that is a disinction only made via language?
Introduction
The distinction between objective facts and subjective interpretations has been a central concern in philosophy, science, and human knowledge. At first glance, it may seem straightforward to separate the two, but a deeper exploration reveals that this boundary is far more blurred than commonly assumed. Our understanding of facts is often mediated by language, which introduces complexities of its own. Language not only helps us communicate and categorize facts, but it also shapes and limits our ability to perceive and interpret reality. This essay explores the relationship between objectivity, subjectivity, and the role of language, arguing that language is an imperfect tool for making these distinctions. As language itself evolves, it further complicates our efforts to clearly define what is objective and what is subjective. By examining how language shapes knowledge, we can better understand the inherent fluidity of meaning and interpretation in human thought.
Objective and Subjective Knowledge: The Role of Interpretation
The traditional view of knowledge often assumes a clear distinction between objective facts and subjective interpretation. David Hume posited that human understanding is inherently subjective, shaped by sensory experiences and individual perception (Hume, 1739). According to Hume, no fact can be fully objective because our minds act as filters that interpret sensory data, leaving room for subjectivity even in seemingly "objective" matters.
This distinction is further complicated by the role of language, which we use to define, explain, and categorize facts. Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) argued that even scientific knowledge is not immune to subjective influences, as paradigm shifts reshape the way we interpret the world. This leads to the conclusion that facts themselves are always subject to reinterpretation depending on the language and context in which they are described.
The Subjectivity of Measurement
The notion that measurements, often seen as objective, are subject to interpretation supports the idea that objectivity is elusive. Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics illustrates how the act of measuring changes the phenomenon being measured (Heisenberg, 1927). This principle suggests that the observer cannot be removed from the observation process—measurement itself is an interpretation, colored by the observer's subjectivity.
The challenge lies in how we communicate these measurements. Human language, with its limitations and ambiguities, is the tool we use to convey our interpretations of these measurements. George Kelly's Personal Construct Theory (1955) reinforces this by proposing that individuals interpret experiences, including data and measurements, through personal constructs. Thus, the subjective understanding of knowledge becomes even more complex when language, an imperfect medium, is involved.
Language as a Mediator Between Objectivity and Subjectivity
Language is the primary medium through which we communicate facts and interpretations, yet it is itself a source of ambiguity. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the structure of a language influences how its speakers perceive and understand the world (Whorf, 1956). This suggests that the very words we use to describe facts influence how those facts are understood, introducing subjectivity at a fundamental level.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later work Philosophical Investigations (1953), emphasized that meaning is derived from the use of language within specific contexts. The flexibility of language means that no word has a fixed, universal meaning, and every speaker interprets language differently. This creates a situation where the distinctions we make between objective and subjective knowledge are themselves mediated by the subjective use of language.
The Evolution of Language and its Impact on Knowledge
Language evolves over time, influenced by cultural shifts, technology, and generational changes. Ferdinand de Saussure's theory of semiotics (1916) explains that the relationship between words (signifiers) and their meanings (signified) is not fixed; it changes as society evolves. This dynamic nature of language adds another layer of complexity to our understanding of knowledge—words that once conveyed a specific meaning may evolve to convey something different, thus altering how facts and interpretations are communicated.
As noted in the preface, even within the same language, different generations may have distinct interpretations of the same word. Noam Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar (1965) suggests that while the deep structure of language remains stable, surface expressions can change over time, leading to miscommunication across generations. This evolution reflects the fluid nature of language and its limitations in maintaining clear distinctions between fact and interpretation.
Resistance to Linguistic Change: The Pedant’s Dilemma
While language evolves, there are often efforts to resist these changes. Language pedants argue for the preservation of "proper" usage, reflecting a desire for linguistic stability in an evolving world. John Simon, in his critiques of modern English, laments what he sees as the degradation of language, arguing that this decline undermines clear communication (Simon, 1980).
However, linguists like David Crystal point out that language must evolve to stay relevant to its speakers (Crystal, 2004). As language evolves, so too does our ability to interpret and describe knowledge. The tension between preserving language and allowing it to evolve mirrors the broader struggle between maintaining objectivity and accepting the subjectivity inherent in human communication.
Generational Differences and the Evolution of Meaning
Generational gaps in language use can create misunderstandings. Steven Pinker in The Stuff of Thought (2007) explores how idiomatic expressions evolve over time, leading to confusion across generations. As noted in the preface, phrases like "shake a stick at" or "Cracker Barrel philosopher" may hold different meanings—or no meaning at all—for younger generations.
Michael Halliday's concept of sociolects—the distinct ways in which different social groups use language—explains why these generational differences occur (Halliday, 1978). As language evolves, different generations develop their own sociolects, further complicating communication and interpretation across time.
Conclusion
The fluidity of knowledge and language is inextricably linked. We use language to make distinctions between objective and subjective knowledge, yet language itself is an imprecise and evolving tool. As our understanding of facts and interpretations shifts with time, so too does the language we use to describe them. This dynamic interaction between language, knowledge, and interpretation underscores the challenges of achieving pure objectivity in human thought and communication.
References
Crystal, D. (2004). The Stories of English. Penguin Books. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/38406/the-stories-of-english-by-crystal-david/9780141015934
David Crystal explores the evolution of the English language, emphasizing the necessity of linguistic change over time and how it reflects societal shifts.
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-treatise-of-human-nature-9780198751724
David Hume’s foundational work on human cognition, arguing that all knowledge is ultimately subjective and filtered through personal perception.
Heisenberg, W. (1927). The Uncertainty Principle. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
Werner Heisenberg's principle in quantum mechanics that illustrates how the act of measurement inherently alters the phenomenon being observed, a metaphor for the limits of objective knowledge.
Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. W. W. Norton & Company. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1211017
George Kelly’s theory explains how individuals interpret the world through personal constructs, emphasizing the subjective nature of human understanding.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html
Thomas Kuhn’s argument that scientific knowledge is shaped by shifting paradigms, demonstrating how subjective interpretation affects even objective facts.
Pinker, S. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Viking.
https://www.amazon.ca/Stuff-Thought-Language-Window-Nature/dp/0143114247
Steven Pinker’s exploration of how language and idioms shape thought, focusing on generational differences in language use.
Saussure, F. de (1916). Course in General Linguistics. McGraw-Hill. https://archive.org/download/courseingenerall00saus/courseingenerall00saus.pdf
Ferdinand de Saussure’s work in semiotics explains the relationship between signifiers (words) and the signified (meanings), and how this relationship evolves over time.
Simon, J. (1980). Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and Its Decline. Random House. https://www.amazon.ca/Paradigms-Lost-Reflections-John-Simon/dp/0517540347
John Simon’s critique of modern linguistic changes, arguing that the degradation of language leads to a breakdown in clear communication.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262730068/language-thought-and-reality/
Benjamin Whorf’s writings on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which proposes that the structure of language shapes the way its speakers perceive reality.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=530657
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analysis of how language derives meaning from its use, emphasizing the subjective and contextual nature of interpretation.
Phenomenologists have a nuanced approach to the distinction between subjective and objective experience, focusing on the structures of consciousness and how we engage with the world. Here’s a summary of their key ideas on this distinction:
1. Edmund Husserl (Founder of Phenomenology)
Intentionality: For Husserl, consciousness is always intentional, meaning that it is directed toward something—an object or a state of affairs. This challenges the strict separation between subjective and objective, as objects are always experienced through consciousness. The "objective" world is given meaning through subjective experience.
Epoché and Bracketing: Husserl introduces the concept of epoché or "bracketing," where one suspends judgment about the objective existence of the world to focus on how things appear in subjective experience. This allows a focus on the structures of consciousness itself, exploring how the world is experienced rather than taking the world for granted as objectively given.
Lifeworld (Lebenswelt): Husserl also introduces the concept of the lifeworld, the world as experienced in everyday life. It is a pre-theoretical world of experience where subjective and objective categories are not clearly delineated but are lived through.
2. Martin Heidegger
Being-in-the-World (Dasein): Heidegger moves beyond Husserl’s focus on individual consciousness to emphasize Dasein, or "being-in-the-world." He argues that subjectivity and objectivity are not separate but rather interrelated within our everyday engagement with the world. The way we encounter objects is not as detached observers (objective) but as beings who are already immersed in the world (subjective).
Truth as Unconcealment (Aletheia): Heidegger also redefines truth not as correspondence between subjective beliefs and objective facts but as aletheia, or unconcealment. This suggests that truth arises through our engagement with the world, where what is hidden is revealed through experience.
3. Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Embodiment: Merleau-Ponty argues that the distinction between subjective and objective is mediated by the body. In his view, perception is not purely subjective or objective; it is a bodily engagement with the world. The body is both subject and object, a vehicle through which we experience the world and a part of the world itself.
Primacy of Perception: Merleau-Ponty emphasizes the importance of pre-reflective experience, arguing that perception is the primary way we engage with the world. For him, the objective world is not something that exists independently of perception but is always shaped by how we experience it through our senses and body.
Intertwining of Subject and Object: In his later work, particularly in The Visible and the Invisible, Merleau-Ponty introduces the idea of flesh, where the subjective and objective are intertwined. The world and the perceiving subject are not separate but co-exist in a reciprocal relationship.
4. Jean-Paul Sartre
Being-for-Itself vs. Being-in-Itself: Sartre distinguishes between being-for-itself (subjective consciousness) and being-in-itself (objective existence). For Sartre, objects exist independently of us (being-in-itself), but their meaning arises only through our subjective consciousness (being-for-itself).
Freedom and Subjectivity: Sartre argues that human beings are condemned to freedom, meaning that subjectivity is primary because it is through subjective choices that we define ourselves and the world. The objective world provides limits, but it is subjective consciousness that makes meaning.
Conclusion:
Phenomenologists challenge the traditional dualism between subjectivity and objectivity. They argue that these two concepts are interdependent and cannot be understood in isolation from one another. Experience is not purely subjective or objective but is shaped by how consciousness interacts with the world. For phenomenologists, the world is not something that exists independently of our experience but is always constituted through subjective acts of perception, intentionality, and embodiment.