Monday, February 13, 2012

THE DILEMMA OF VAGUENESS: FROM AN ORDINARY CHALLENGE TO A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM


 
Cebu Island, Philippines
Every time I take a shower every morning, I always find myself in a difficult situation: locate the exact place of the shower knob so I can take a bath neither with hot water that would boil me nor with cold water that could freeze me. It is always a tedious task to find the ideal water temperature to have a worry-free shower.  But I have never succeeded so far, after so many tries. Taking a shower has been for me a “burden” to endure. The truth is I just bear the coldness or the hotness of the water for I do not want to waste time just to find the ideal temperature of the water, or I will be late for the next schedule.

This daily challenge of mine was never a philosophical problem until I read the article of Bertrand Russell about vagueness. I complain too much, but I have realized that an Eskimo would have considered warm what I consider cold, while what I consider warm or hot could be cold to a Berber.  Is the water that I take a bath with hot or cold? Up to what extent that we can say that it is hot or it is cold? Do hotness and coldness depend on the one who perceives? How do we call the temperature when it is neither hot nor cold?
El Nido, Palawan, Philippines
The English term “lukewarm” is generally accepted as the continuum between hot and cold; however, the said term is defined as just slightly warm, that is, fairly or moderately hot. But one of its synonyms is cool which is defined as fairly or somewhat cold, therefore not hot or warm. Russell would be quick to vent that this is just an example of vagueness of our human language: “All words denoting sensible qualities have the same kind of vagueness which belongs to the word red”. Are definitions merely circular? Are all natural human languages vague?
Our knowledge and sciences are based on concepts. If all words or concepts are vague, then we can never achieve true knowledge. If our languages are vague, then our sciences would be futile. It is true that our words do not totally grasp or express the reality that they represent, but it does not mean that the words are meaningless. Words are representation of things, states, or ideas. The idea that I would like to convey here would be incomprehensible if the words used are vague or meaningless. Precisely, the readers of a book understand the thoughts of its author because they know what the words represent. If the relation between the words and what they represent is vague, then nobody could understand each other. Communication would be impossible.
Camiguin Island, Philippines
Russell opines that in an accurate language, meaning would be a one-one relation, and that no word would have two meanings and no two words would have the same meaning. And a little further, he states, “The fact that meaning is a one- many relation is the precise statement of the fact that all language is more or less vague.” In many, if not all languages, there are words that have different meanings, but they are understood in a context. In English, the word conduct is understood when it is used in a context, for example: The senators conduct the negotiation with total secrecy; and the senators’ conduct is laudable. In the first sentence, conduct is used as a verb, and it means to carry out or manage something while in the second, it is used as a noun, and it means behavior. When the same word is used in a context, we clearly understand what it means. The intricacy of our languages is just a proof of their richness. There is no ideal language. There is no perfect language because human beings are not perfect. But human language, as vehicle or expression of his thought, is an evidence of man’s enigmatic and complex nature.

I continue to struggle in my morning shower. But I know what is hot and what is cold, the same way an Eskimo or a Berber understands them. There could be varied degrees of how we perceive the hotness or the coldness of the water, but we have the same understanding or idea of what they are.
Bertrand Russell

No comments:

Post a Comment