Socio Philo

8/12/2019 Socio Philo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/socio-philo 1/41

Language Analysisand Education

A.Sources of Language AnalysisB. Language Analysis and How We

Think

C. Metaphysics is OutD. Is Philosophy of Education

Possible?E. Values of Language Analysis



A. Sources of Language Analysis

A. Sources of

Language Analysis



The name most associated with languageanalysis considered as definite movement:

1. Ludwig Joseph Wittgenstein (1899-1951 )2. Bertrand Arthur William Russel

3. George E. Moore (1873-1958)

4. Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-)

12



•Tractacus Logico Philosophicus, (Logical-

Philosophical Treatise)

• In 1929, he was appointed to the facultyat Cambridge University and served withdistinction over a period of about twodecades.

The name most associated with language analysis considered as definitemovement:

1. Ludwig Joseph Wittgenstein (1899-1951)



• His primary concerned with language in hisearlier years was to determine those

requirements it must meet in orderaccurately to describe elements and structuresof nature.

•

His later concern was more with languageitself than with its function of mirroring theworld it was with the limits of language and thekinds of questions that language can sensiblypose and answer.

The name most associated with language analysis considered as definitemovement:

1. Ludwig Joseph Wittgenstein (1899-1951)



2. Bertrand Arthur William Russel

•great British philosopher andmathematician and was one ofWittgenstein’s teacher.

•His most trusted language ismathematics and his willingness to dealwith verbal symbols is no doubt tingedwith some condescension.



2. Bertrand Arthur William Russel

• Mathematics is for him a language parexcellence in which precision of meaningcan really be expressed.•Verbal language can do only with great

difficulty, if at all, necessity.

• Most people are creatures of words, andif there is to some degree of precision inthe use of words as well some sense as tothe limits of any kind of language, thenverbal language must receive attentionhowever tempting the luxury andexclusiveness of mathematical language




•was at least generally influential incontributing to the rise of languageanalysis by his vigorous opposition toidealism.

•He was a man of “common sense” whodealt with “real” objects.

•He was a neo- realist and therefore,

oversimplified our way of knowing objectsin nature, as the critical realists were atpains to point out.




• He felt that he know what an individualman with a body is and could talk aboutpeople in the particular. But when theidealist discoursed about the self or a

soul, this was outside his ken andprobably nothing.

•The “outside” world of nature was veryreal and for Moore it was absurd to uselanguage to speculate about things whichnot manifestly existent in this world.•It was the proper function of philosophy,therefore the proper function of language

to deal with things which exist in the here



4. Alfred Jules Ayer(1910-)

•One of the leading language analysis who isregarded by his peers both with criticism and

appreciation.

•His Language, Truth and Logic , first published on1936 and since 1952 in paperback in the UnitedStates, is a kind of classic of the field of languageanalysis.



Other present leaders are

1 . Gilbert Ryle (1900) of Oxford

2. W. V. Quine (1908) of Harvard

B. LANGUAGE ANALYSISAND

HOW WE THINK



•Men very commonly misunderstand one anotherbecause of ambiguity or confusion in discourse.

•One meaning is often intended but an entirely

different meaning is heard.

•The philosophical analysis of language is not onlydirected to precision in communication but also itconsiders precision as exceedingly important indetermining the kinds of statements for whichmeaning is possible.



.•In fact language analysis is philosophicalbecause it is concerned to sort out those conceptswhich can have meaning from those which

cannot.

•Philosophical analysis of language discloses

such precision in matching misconceptions withwhat exists in nature is by no means.



.

•Descriptive statements compared to logicalstatements.

Example: “ All animals have four legs”. If all animals have four legs

Since a cat is an animalIt has four legs.

(True statement because it is preceded theconditional “if”)



Two kinds of statements which can be “true”.

1. There are logical statements which are alwaysset within the “if” or “if and only” if condition. Thesecan be true if flawlessly constructed because theydeal only with relations when certain conditionsprevail and do not say anything about matters offacts. If they do speak of matters of fact whichthey correspond, it is quite incident and not all

primary to the statements.



Two kinds of statements which can be“ true” .

2. There are also some statements about matters offacts which may be confirmed by reference to thefacts with which these statements deal. The moredirect and immediate the confirmation can be use inpointing to that “cat”, for example, the moreacceptable the confirmation.



•Therefore, for most language analysts that logical

statements may be verified by checking that theyproceed flawlessly from the if - and only - ifcondition.Statements about matters of fact may be confirmedto a degree. But more immediate or direct theobservation of the matter of fact and more free it isfrom generality, then the more acceptable thestatement.




METAPHYSICSIS

OUT



• According to language analysis, metaphysicalstatements do not constitute a proper use oflanguage. This is an important and significantnegation because a good portion of philosophy hasconcerned itself with alleged meta -physical truth.

• Metaphysics has been the major concern of manyphilosophers. But language analysis rules it out asnot a legitimate subject about which language touse. Therefore it is not legitimate concern ofphilosophy.

Metaphysics is out



•Language analysis is that language can only beused legitimately to deal with that which can beconfirmed or is verifiable.

•Language can be used to formulate statementswhich can be logically verified.

•The exclusion of metaphysics statements bylanguage analysis is made because such

statements can neither be confirmed nor are theyconceivably capable of confirmation.

Metaphysics is out



•Language analyst do not consider alleged truthsabout nature to be metaphysical because they dealwith some reality, but rather they can considereddescriptive statements based on observation andconfirmed thereby.

•The function of language is to make statementswhich are true because they can be confirmed orverified as true.

Metaphysics is out



•It would seem fair to say that language analysisgreatly limits the range of philosophy.

•Philosophy can deal with history of philosophy.

•Philosophy cannot deal with value

Metaphysics is out



• The great exceptions seems to be thatphilosophy can deal with epistemology to extentthat it devotes itself to statements of knowledge to

determine their verifiability as accurate & precise.This would seem virtually to limit the legitimaterange of epistemology to logic. This is possibly thereason that the terms “logical analysis,” “philosophical analysis” and “language analysis” seem to be used almost interchangeably.

Metaphysics is out






IS PHILOSOPHYOF EDUCATION

POSSIBLE?



• The great exceptions seems to be thatphilosophy can deal with epistemology to extentthat it devotes itself. The effect of language

analysis upon philosophy of education as it hadcommon been conceived is, therefore, largely oneof the deflation, if not demolition.

Is Philosophy of Education Possible?



• Another approach which may be explored iswhether there can be a philosophy of educationcomprised of principles derived from varioussources. If so, philosophy of education could beequated with a general theory of education. Inaddition to the history of educational thought andpractices, there are a few sciences focusing onman which conceivably could be the source ofideas if not principles which as a composite couldconceivably comprise a general theory ofeducation. Among these sciences of man arephysiology, psychology and sociology.




• From Plato to the present, there have been thosewho have put forward both in writing and practicetheir thought as to what education should be.

Although there are of course, conflicting viewswhich would have to be resolved or from whichpreferential selections would need to be made, it isconceivable that this history of thought andpractice could provide a fund of theory abouteducation which might constitute philosophy ofeducation as a general theory of education.




• The science of psychology has alleged learnedmany things about man and having acquired atleast some of the discipline of a science, can befairly precise about these findings, which arerelevant could also be poured into the blend ofgeneral principles which would comprise a generaltheory of education.




• The branch of child psychology which supposedlyhas sufficiently documented a certain knowledgeabout children which would be especiallyapplicable to the lower reaches of education.

•The science of physiology is supposedly able totell us those relevant facts about the body life ofpeople which would a helpful part of general theoryof education.




• Sociology can tell us in disciplined termconsiderably more precise than common sensehow individuals act in group as well as the natureof groups and how they function. Since a verylarge portion of education is an institutional affair inwhich groups, if not masses of individual peopleare involved. Sociology, it could be assumed, hasa fund of relevant knowledge which would helpcomprise a general theory of education.




Two observations are clearly in order at this

point:

1. The first is that as a matter of facts schools andcolleges of education have four years offeredcourses in educational psychology and educationalsociology. This is not to mention courses in specialmethods of teaching particular subjects as well ascourses in the administration of education.




Two observations are clearly in order at this

point:

2. The other observation is that such a generaltheory of education is not at all what philosophersof education to be. Philosophy of education andsuch a general theory of education are twodifferent things, according to philosophers ofeducation. But according to language analysis,there can be no philosophy of education aseducational philosophers have common conceivedit.




• One thing wrong with philosophy of , which is far

less a criticism than those bearing on itsverifiability, is that it always envisions thestereotype of a school, teacher, classes ofstudents, different subject matters areas, etc.




• An attempt will be to exemplify a model as alegitimate form of philosophizing in education forlanguage analysis. In doing this, we will leanheavily upon Kenneth B. Henderson’s article,” ALogical Model for Conceptualizing and OtherRelated Activities” . This is a model for teaching

concepts and possibly also the process ofconceptualizing, generalizing and abstracting.




• In teaching of a concept, the context must betaken fully into account because it may otherwisechange the meaning of the name given the

concept.

The role of a teacher in teaching aconcept:

•make sure that the students associate the samething with the term used for the concept that withinher/his mind.




The role of a teacher in teaching a concept:

• The teacher should be clear and precise in givingthe point of reference in using the term for theconcept .

•There are also connotative concepts, the termswhich point to a characteristic in a condition of a

thing which itself is pointed to by a denotative term.




The role of a teacher in teaching a concept:

• The teacher would propose a model for theteaching of concepts which he is convinced willfunction successfully for all concepts whenfollowed with care.





VALUES OFLANGUAGE ANALYSIS



• The single-mindedness of language analysis isstriving for statements which are accuratelyconfirmed as describing matters of facts is mostcommendable and much to be desired. In thesame single-minded way language analysisdemands statements which are logically verifiable.In both of these single-minded efforts precision canbe seen as a prime value which is of great worth.

Values of Language Analysis



• Words should constitute more than acommunication which is predominantly emotionalare activities and unconsciously designed to effect“togetherness”, antagonism, persuasion by theimpact of propaganda, covert grasping of power,the enclosing of the in-group more securely, theexcluding of the out-group more disdainfully, orsome other similar desiderate of questionablevalue. At least language analysis respects words

as signs and tries to make these signs signifywithout ambiguity.




• Man is concerns about many more matters thancan be factually confirmed or logically verified aslanguage analysis wants them to be.

• Language analysis closed the door ofinquisitiveness about such things because it is notpossible for precise language to represent this,they are meaningless subjects.


Socio Philo

Documents

Transcript of Socio Philo