One of the arguments of so-called 'language critic', is such that language is therefore not an appropriate means of knowledge or can be, because the respective basic language elements - such as terms - in the depths of their being, far too arbitrary, too subjective than to objective knowledge would be able to convey.
Using an example, I try the / a 'critical language' position as they met me in so many discussions, trace:
The term 'reality', for example, is a widely used term. On the surface it seems
when he would be understood by all that the German language is powerful, ...
one breaks through, however, this superficial faith, and asks what the individual step under the term 'reality' understanding exactly revealed some extreme differences of opinion.
It almost seems as if everyone have their very own, subjective definition or understanding of the term 'reality'.
And therefore it can be stated that the one and only and true concept of reality, with certainty, no such thing - and because he does not exist, adheres to this concept, in consequence there is a relatively high degree of subjective arbitrariness, and this subjective arbitrariness leads to inevitable misunderstandings in communication.
The probability that the person with whom you communicate or speaks the same view and the same understanding of the concept of reality has, as they themselves, thus more than just low.
is much more likely, however, that each of the caller's own views and his own understanding of the concept of 'bring', and included in the talk can be.
And is not already at the outset of the call stressed, which opinion and understanding which the individual conversation participants each from the concept of reality, they are then 'talk past' each other in the majority, and each other is difficult to do not understand.
'What is said is incomprehensible for others, and incomprehensible! "
Would these difficulties, however, be reduced solely to the concept of 'reality', it would certainly be possible to find ways and means to alleviate these difficulties understanding.
Unfortunately reduce these difficulties in understanding not only on the concept 'reality'.
They are, in terms of ALL!
There is no notion that would adhere to his view and his understanding is not something subjective, arbitrary.
And considering that in a conversation not just one or two terms, but a variety of different related terms, use, and each term, each of nearly every conversation participant in his own, subjective way be perceived and understood, it is clear that the number of misunderstandings in a conversation is at least as great as the number of used terms, and that it is in a conversation almost impossible to understand the effort.
reason, and from a number of other reasons, language can never be an appropriate means of knowledge!
As far as the 'critical language' position.
Should that these 'critical language' position, successful communication would be impossible.
It is quite true: Sometimes people talk past each other - but, and this is the essential, they do not do this forever!
An example of successful communication, example, I experienced today again
I was with friends at a university lecture and the lecturer Professor we were informed, inter alia, where and when the next inspection to take place and what will be examination material.
I hope this will now not be a big surprise to all ...
but all my friends with whom I sat together for this course did not only WHEN and WHERE will be the test, she knew, beyond that, all around the test substance exactly modest.
And as we all - as different as we are, after all - only because of language communication with identification information in a particular area, have fallen, this is a proof that linguistic communication does not always fail, and that language very well - at least to a certain extent - this done and is capable of (exact and inter-subjective) to provide information, knowledge and insights.
Using an example, I try the / a 'critical language' position as they met me in so many discussions, trace:
The term 'reality', for example, is a widely used term. On the surface it seems
when he would be understood by all that the German language is powerful, ...
one breaks through, however, this superficial faith, and asks what the individual step under the term 'reality' understanding exactly revealed some extreme differences of opinion.
It almost seems as if everyone have their very own, subjective definition or understanding of the term 'reality'.
And therefore it can be stated that the one and only and true concept of reality, with certainty, no such thing - and because he does not exist, adheres to this concept, in consequence there is a relatively high degree of subjective arbitrariness, and this subjective arbitrariness leads to inevitable misunderstandings in communication.
The probability that the person with whom you communicate or speaks the same view and the same understanding of the concept of reality has, as they themselves, thus more than just low.
is much more likely, however, that each of the caller's own views and his own understanding of the concept of 'bring', and included in the talk can be.
And is not already at the outset of the call stressed, which opinion and understanding which the individual conversation participants each from the concept of reality, they are then 'talk past' each other in the majority, and each other is difficult to do not understand.
'What is said is incomprehensible for others, and incomprehensible! "
Would these difficulties, however, be reduced solely to the concept of 'reality', it would certainly be possible to find ways and means to alleviate these difficulties understanding.
Unfortunately reduce these difficulties in understanding not only on the concept 'reality'.
They are, in terms of ALL!
There is no notion that would adhere to his view and his understanding is not something subjective, arbitrary.
And considering that in a conversation not just one or two terms, but a variety of different related terms, use, and each term, each of nearly every conversation participant in his own, subjective way be perceived and understood, it is clear that the number of misunderstandings in a conversation is at least as great as the number of used terms, and that it is in a conversation almost impossible to understand the effort.
reason, and from a number of other reasons, language can never be an appropriate means of knowledge!
As far as the 'critical language' position.
Should that these 'critical language' position, successful communication would be impossible.
It is quite true: Sometimes people talk past each other - but, and this is the essential, they do not do this forever!
An example of successful communication, example, I experienced today again
I was with friends at a university lecture and the lecturer Professor we were informed, inter alia, where and when the next inspection to take place and what will be examination material.
I hope this will now not be a big surprise to all ...
but all my friends with whom I sat together for this course did not only WHEN and WHERE will be the test, she knew, beyond that, all around the test substance exactly modest.
And as we all - as different as we are, after all - only because of language communication with identification information in a particular area, have fallen, this is a proof that linguistic communication does not always fail, and that language very well - at least to a certain extent - this done and is capable of (exact and inter-subjective) to provide information, knowledge and insights.
0 comments:
Post a Comment