SlateGreySky

:banghead:

Obviously I'm coming across as linguistically challenged here, and for that I apologize. Let me try once more. What does "I" do in language? If it is a "necessary fiction," what then does that necessary fiction accomplish/set out to accomplish?

Then, does the function of "I" in language (and cognition, for that matter) have anything at all to do with the dichotomy between subject and object as has been traditionally set out in philosophy? If so, what? If not, what illusion acted as the impetus for the original conception of such a dichotomy?

Hugo Holbling

Not so; rather, i just want to be clear myself.

That question is better put to one of the experts, like Gurdur or ksagnostic, or perhaps one of our posters from the orient. The latter may be able to tell you if the dichotomy functions in the same way in their tongue, since i recall some discussion suggesting that it doesn't (IIRC).

I'll ask Gurdur. I'd guess that the presupposition of separation implies granting greater validity to the distinct self.

phaedrus

Slate

Let me try to get to the bottomline without getting lost in myriad of linguistic calisthenics

What does "I" do in language?

Refers to self and the self's thoughts/views/feelings/emotions in the process of communication through a verbal language. And yes as mentioned above it is not talking about the "self" as an isolated entity, but is reflecting the self which is part of the web-of-beliefs that in turn is a result of the interplay between self and the world


If it is a "necessary fiction," what then does that necessary fiction accomplish/set out to accomplish?

Why do you call it a 'necessary fiction'? Are you saying this from a I-thou relationship or something else? All verbal language has mostly one objective - to 'communicate'

Then, does the function of "I" in language (and cognition, for that matter) have anything at all to do with the dichotomy between subject and object as has been traditionally set out in philosophy? If so, what? If not, what illusion acted as the impetus for the original conception of such a dichotomy?

There is nothing philosophical with this "I", in a language full of symbols, this symbol reflects the self.

Consider the following statement -

"I am a man"

What all does this statement reflect? Give it a shot we will take it from there......

jp

John Page

I concur.

In order for us to declare "I" then I must know of myself. How accurate that self-knowledge is, and how accurately it can be expressed in language, is where we seem to run into diffculties.

Cheers, John

SlateGreySky

"I am a man."

The first question that seems to arise is, does the predication of "man" on "I" imply essential predication, or is it merely accidental? That is to say, would the "I" be "I" if "I" were to undergo a sex change? It seems at least intuitively plausible that "I" would be the same, therefore "man" seems to have been predicated accidentally upon "I".

How awkward those last two sentences appear! They read so clumsily because I never replaced "I" with a pronoun like "he" or "it." This, I think, is exactly the crisis of definition for "I". If we say that "I" refers, the question immediately presents itself, "refers to what?" In answering any question of that form, the "I" has been objectified and as such seems to have lost an essential element of its function in language, namely, the denotation of the subjective self. Notice that even in my attempt at a refutation of the objectification of "I", I invoke object language when I describe "I" as "denoting the subjective self."

This makes me wonder, is it possible to define the role of "I" in language without doing violence to that defined role? Any attempt, I think, at ostensive definition or described reference is inherently flawed, because the description/definition annihilates the content of the expression. As soon as the "I" is described as, "it refers to the self," one has already objectified both "self" and "I", and the content of the description has already become irrevocably torn away from the content of the expression (which seems to be a content of subject and not of object).

There's my shot.

phaedrus

Umm...more like a shot gun

The first question that seems to arise is, does the predication of "man" on "I" imply essential predication, or is it merely accidental?

What is the difference between former and latter, i.e, essential and accidental.....illustrate

That is to say, would the "I" be "I" if "I" were to undergo a sex change? It seems at least intuitively plausible that "I" would be the same, therefore "man" seems to have been predicated accidentally upon "I".

What is the confusion here??? It is very simple....if the particular "I" undergoes a sex change, the statement will change to "I am a woman" so what has changed ? (clue - 'self')

How awkward those last two sentences appear! They read so clumsily because I never replaced "I" with a pronoun like "he" or "it." This, I think, is exactly the crisis of definition for "I". If we say that "I" refers, the question immediately presents itself, "refers to what?" In answering any question of that form, the "I" has been objectified and as such seems to have lost an essential element of its function in language, namely, the denotation of the subjective self. Notice that even in my attempt at a refutation of the objectification of "I", I invoke object language when I describe "I" as "denoting the subjective self."

I dont see anything awkward, except that you seem to getting into what i said above myriad of linguistic calisthenics What is so difficult with "I" referrring to "self"??? How has "I" been objectified and i dont see it losing its function of denoting the subjective self.

This makes me wonder, is it possible to define the role of "I" in language without doing violence to that defined role? Any attempt, I think, at ostensive definition or described reference is inherently flawed, because the description/definition annihilates the content of the expression. As soon as the "I" is described as, "it refers to the self," one has already objectified both "self" and "I", and the content of the description has already become irrevocably torn away from the content of the expression (which seems to be a content of subject and not of object).

How will a description/definition destroy the content of expression when the whole point of a "group of symbols" (read...language) shared by a set of people is to be able to understand what each symbol stands, notwithstanding subjective interpretations of a phrase.

You will have either elaborate more or just relook at your focus on subject/object dichotomy with new viewing glasses.....

jp