The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast
A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog
Continuing from part one on Jürgen Habermas’ “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions, and the Lifeworld” (1998), with guest John Foster.
We get into the details on the validity claims built into speech, how this provides the foundation for society, and Habermas’ the multi-layered “life-world.”
To listen to this, become a supporter at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support. Listen to a preview.
On Jürgen Habermas’ “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions, and the Lifeworld” (1998), with guest John Foster.
What’s the relation between individuals and society? Habermas says that language has ethics built right into it: I’m trying to get you to agree with me, to engage in a cooperative enterprise of mutual understanding.
Sponsors: Visit TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/PEL for a free trial of The Great Courses Plus Video Learning Service. Open a real estate portfolio at fundrise.com/PEL and get your first 90 days of advisory fees waived.
On Jürgen Habermas’ “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions, and the Lifeworld” (1998), with guest John Foster.
What’s the relation between individuals and society? Habermas says that language has ethics built right into it: I’m trying to get you to agree with me, to engage in a cooperative enterprise of mutual understanding.
On “Scorekeeping in a Language Game” (1979) and “Truth in Fiction” (1978).
Lewis’s account of possible worlds can be applied to conversation: As we speak, each sentence adds to the “conversational score” (the set of assumptions that enable us to understand each other) while reducing the field of possible worlds that the picture we’re painting together could potentially represent. What are the gravitational forces within this kind of scorekeeping? Also, when an author creates a fictive “world,” how do facts about that world logically relate to those of the actual world? With guest Matt Teichman.
Start with part 1 or get the unbroken Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: “Real Life” by Matt Wilson, as interviewed for Nakedly Examined Music #118.
On Ch. 4 of Lewis’s book Counterfactuals (1973) and the essays “Scorekeeping in a Language Game” (1979) and “Truth in Fiction” (1978).
What makes a sentence about possibility true? Lewis thinks that we need possible worlds that really exist in order to make sense of our modal intuitions. He uses this possible-world talk to make sense of conversations and the worlds created by fiction writers. With guest Matt Teichman from Elucidations.
End song: “Real Life” by Matt Wilson, as interviewed for Nakedly Examined Music #118.
Finishing Davidson’s “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” (1974) and moving on to Carnap’s “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” (1950).
Carnap claims that we talk about mathematical objects or subatomic particles or whatever, we’re not really (contra Quine) making metaphysical claims. Ontological questions like “Are there really numbers?” are just pretentious nonsense. With guest Dusty Dallman.
Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End Song: “Shut Up” by Chandler Travis, as heard on Nakedly Examined Music #46.
Sponsors: Listen to the Outside the Box podcast. Learn about St. John’s College at partiallyexaminedlife.com/sjc.
On Davidson’s “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” (1974) and Carnap’s “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” (1950).
What does it mean to say that we grasp the world through a conceptual scheme? Are schemes different between cultures or even individuals, such that we can’t really understand each other? Davidson thinks that this doesn’t make sense. With guest Dusty Dallman.
Sponsors: Listen to the Outside the Box podcast! Get an interest rate discount on a loan at lightstream.com/PEL.
On Davidson’s “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” (1974) and Carnap’s “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” (1950).
What does it mean to say that we grasp the world through a conceptual scheme? Are schemes different between cultures or even individuals, such that we can’t really understand each other? Davidson thinks that this doesn’t make sense. Carnap gives us a picture of multiple, domain-specific vocabularies and doesn’t see a problem with the concepts of one not being translatable into concepts of another.
End Song: “Shut Up” by Chandler Travis, as heard on Nakedly Examined Music #46.
A bonus discussion between Mark and Wes for supporters! We give some philosophy of language context for the issues of meaning brought up in ep 189. Plus, some discussion of the critic James Wood, and analyzing T.S. Eliot’s “Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.”
Continuing on How to Do Things with Words (lectures from 1955), covering lectures 5–9.
Austin tries and fails to come up with a way to grammatically distinguish performatives from other utterances, and so turns to his more complicated system of aspects of a single act: locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. In doing so, he perlocutionarily blows our minds.
Listen to part one first, or get the ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
Sponsors: Get a free trial and 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain at squarespace.com, offer code PEL. Visit thegreatcoursesplus.com/PEL for a one-month free trial of The Great Courses Plus Video Learning Service.
On How to Do Things with Words (lectures from 1955).
What’s the relationship between language and the world? Austin says it’s not all about descriptive true-or-false statements, but also includes “performatives” like “I promise…” and “I do” (spoken in a wedding) that are actions unto themselves. They can’t be true or false, but they can be “unhappy” if social conventions aren’t fulfilled (e.g., you try to marry a pig). Austin thinks performatives will change your whole view of language and of linguistically expressed philosophical problems!
Don’t wait for part two! Get the ad-free, unbroken Citizen Edition now! Please support PEL.
Sponsors: Visit Squarespace.com for a free trial and 10% off with offer code EXAMINED and thegreatcoursesplus.com/PEL for a one-month free trial of The Great Courses Plus Video Learning Service.
On How to Do Things with Words (lectures from 1955).
What’s the relationship between language and the world? Austin says it’s not all about descriptive true-or-false statements, but also includes “performatives” like “I promise…” and “I do” (spoken in a wedding) that are actions unto themselves. They can’t be true or false, but they can be “unhappy” if social conventions aren’t fulfilled (e.g., you try to marry a pig). Austin thinks performatives will change your whole view of language and of linguistically expressed philosophical problems!
End song: “The Promise” by When In Rome. Listen to Mark interview singer/songwriter Clive Farrington on Nakedly Examined Music #40.
Are insults largely interchangeable, or do they have fixed descriptive content, in addition to their normative (insulting) content? Can the two elements of meaning be isolated? Thoughts on innovations in language.
Continuing with 1984. How does the book relate to real-world politics? Is this something that we should actually be afraid our society will turn into? Was he predicting history, or was it satire, or what? We discuss the the realms of intimacy vs. surveillance, how a state might “contain” a mind that it controls, and “doublethink.”
On the novel 1984 (1949) and the essays “Politics and the English Language” (1946) and “Notes on Nationalism” (1945).
What’s the relation between language and totalitarianism? Orwell shows us a society where the rulers have mastered the art of retaining power, and one element of this involves “Newspeak,” where vocabulary is limited to prevent subversive speech, and ultimately thoughts. Do our linguistic habits and the Orwellian lies of our leaders point to a slippery slope toward the world of 1984?
On the novel 1984 (1949) and the essays “Politics and the English Language” (1946) and “Notes on Nationalism” (1945).
What’s the relation between language and totalitarianism? Orwell shows us a society where the rulers have mastered the art of retaining power, and one element of this involves “Newspeak,” where vocabulary is limited to prevent subversive speech, and ultimately thoughts. Do our linguistic habits and the Orwellian lies of our leaders point to a slippery slope toward the world of 1984?
End song: “Civil Disobedience” by Camper Van Beethoven from New Roman Times (2004), written by Jonathan Segel as interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music ep. 38.
Exploration of the big idea that permeates Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me.
On “The Meaning of Meaning” (1975). If meaning is not a matter of having a description in your head, then what is it? Hilary Putnam reformulates Kripke’s insight (from #126) in terms of Twin Earths: Earthers with H20 and Twin Earthers with a substance that seems like water but is different have the same mental contents but are referring to different stuff with “water,” so that word is speaker-relative in a certain way. With guest Matt Teichman.
End song: “In the Boatyard” by Mark Lint & the Madison Lint Ensemble (2004, finished now).
On “The Meaning of Meaning” (1975). If meaning is not a matter of having a description in your head, then what is it? Hilary Putnam reformulates Kripke’s insight (from #126) in terms of Twin Earths: Earthers with H20 and Twin Earthers with a substance that seems like water but is different have the same mental contents but are referring to different stuff with “water,” so that word is speaker-relative in a certain way. With guest Matt Teichman. Learn more.
End song: “In the Boatyard” by Mark Lint & the Madison Lint Ensemble (2004, finished now).
We were rejoined by Matt Teichman to continue our Kripke thread, discussing primarily Putnam’s essay “The Meaning of Meaning” (1971) about water here vs. water on “Twin Earth” where that stuff that runs in rivers and streams has a different chemical composition. Putnam puts forth a positive theory of meaning that involves holding a stereotype of a term (e.g., that water is wet) but also where your meaning is determined by extension, i.e., what your term in the real world actually refers to, so that we and the Twin Earthers mean something different even though we seem to have the same psychological state when talking about water.
