Language, the Tool and Enemy of Philosophical Debate
by Stan Burdman
Many times have I participated in the combat of philosophy, many times have I come out victories
in my mind, many times have I vanquished the ignorance and ugliness of opposing ideas. Recently
however, I have found one infallible truth, one that tarnishes my perfect record of aggressive
destruction of the irrational: LANGUAGE IS UNQUESTIONABLY SUBJECTIVE. The meaning of many
(really all, to be a stickler) important words is completely open to personal interpretation, thus, any
personal argument I make can easily be dissolved with a confusion or disagreement of verbal
syntax.
The following is a recreation of the typical (every) philosophical argument:
Socrates: The meaning of life is to enjoy candy.
Barry Gibb: I agree, I love licking candy.
Socrates: No, you high pitched baboon! Candy is enjoyed when eaten, not simply licked.
Barry Gibb: I didn’t win countless music awards to be spoken to in such a manner. I CREATED John
Travolta.
You see children, Socrates and mister Gibb did not agree on the definition of the word “enjoy” in
the context of candy. Barry believes enjoying candy is licking it while our ancient Greek friend has
decided you must chomp down on the delicious treat of candy in order to fully inhale its sweet,
heavenly vapors. This debate is dead in the water; It has left the realm of intelligent argument
(debate), and has entered the land of pointless bickering. Without a clear agreement on the
subjective meaning of certain key words, a philosophical debate cannot go anywhere, ever. Like
Bobby Brown and Amy Winehouse wrestling over a crack rock, no one is a clear winner. Sure Amy
might bite Bobby Brown on the arm and run off with the drugs, but, she is still a crack head at the
end of the confrontation. No new information is created if there is no verbal legend with a clear
definition of important words.
I am sure the fact that words can have various interpretations is not a new concept for most
anyone of average to above average intelligence. I am sure a lot of people have thought about this
article’s idea before, I am not claiming to be the Christopher Columbus of obvious linguistic facts.
WHY then must I watch and read and listen to endless bickering debates that do not take this
article’s simple notion into account!? Are most philosophical debaters so in love with their own
voice or writing style that they simply jump over the basic principle of word definition agreement?
The basic foundation of any successful philosophical debate? Is this just a subconscious tactic by
philosophers because they realize ANY human idea is subjective and thus, in the grand scheme of
things, completely lacking proven objective merit? Are we just arguing philosophy as a recreational
activity, knowing full well we don’t know any real truth and have no hope of knowing it? Maybe.