As a counterpoint, I turn to that somewhat “hard-nosed” materialist of the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes, and his book, “Leviathan.” In chapter V of that work Hobbes notes seven “causes of absurditie” in reasoning. As an example, here is cause number 6: “the use of Metaphors, Tropes, and other Rhetoricall figures, in stead of words proper….” Later, he looks at “absurditie” in discourse, or speech, which occurs when words are used “without anything correspondent to them in the mind.” He thinks such misusage is a form of “Madnesse.” Further, he thinks such speakers are either “Mad,” or are purposefully trying to make others Mad.
It appears that Hobbes’s model of “reasoning” or “reckoning” is based on mathematics; that is, geometry (Euclidian) and Arithmetic (adding and subtracting). He admits that we use speech for different purposes, such as “to please and delight our selves, and others, by playing with our words, for pleasure or ornament, innocently.” But when it comes to the serious search for truth or “wisedome” play, or poetry (the use of metaphor) is not recommended. Indeed, he believes that all “insignificant speech,” “absurditie,” and “Madnesse” derives especially from philosophers and “Schoole men” who do not, as in Geometry, begin their work with clear definitions, or pay attention to the exact significations of their words. Beginning, rather, with ambiguous and vague or meaningless concepts, they get further entangled as they draw further sums by adding and subtracting absurdities. Such philosophers get “entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twigs; the more he struggles, the more belimed.” (What?! This is a metaphor!).
In sharp contrast to the Hobbesian conception of language and reasoning, is the conception exemplified in modern Continental philosophy. As an example, I consider a text by Martin Heidegger, called, “What is Called Thinking.” Here we have 250 pages of extended metaphors, as language is said to speak, as we prepare a path that would enable us to leap into a strange unfamiliar territory where thinking resides. We are said to move within language, and the ground is shifting, or as if we are on a billowing sea. Every word is said to have multiple meanings and any sentence a multitude of interpretations. Words exemplify meanings as signs within a network of other words showing oppositions, contrasts, associations, resonance. It’s as if a word was the deep sound of a huge bell, with multiple overtones and reverberations echoing through the flatlands of Modern times. Heidegger explores every possible connotation and etymology of the words that interest him, attempting to discover hidden and forgotten meanings and bring them out into the open.
The trouble with Heidegger’s linguistic idealism is that it seems he never says anything, never draws a conclusion. One gets the feeling that his search is intense and intelligent, but the point of the journey is lost in the foggy labyrinth of multiple paths and poetic wonder.
Hobbes and Heidegger are prime examples of two apparently diametrically opposed traditions in Western philosophical endeavor. One, known as the “analytic” tradition, predominantly British and American, seeks precision, clarity, truth. The other, sometimes known as “Post-modernism” tends more toward poetry, literature and edification. Finding a common ground between these traditions is perhaps impossible. From the point of view of analytic philosophy, post-modernism is “Madnesse” and absurd; while from the point of view of post-modernism, analytic philosophy is trivial, myopic, and irrelevant.
Since we live in a society that tolerates maximum diversity, at least in theory, we have the opportunity to appreciate and develop an understanding of both points of view. Then somewhere in that multiple appreciation lies the common ground.
Puzzle
In the Battle of Hastings, of 1066 A. D., Harold formed his forces into 13 squares, the same number of men in each. When Harold himself joined the array, all the squares came together, and with Harold, formed one huge square. So how many men where in Harold’s forces?
Answer to last week’s puzzle
It would take nine marbles to balance.
