The following is an introduction to my forthcoming essay called Current Methods of Usage. It is a heavily revised continuation of work I did as an undergraduate that explores the fundamental nature of language. If it sounds like something that you might be interested in reading and discussing, stay tuned!
“At two different points in his research, Ludwig Wittgenstein held conflicting theories about the nature of language. These two philosophies arguably gave rise to the two schools of thought that are still prominent today: analytical and continental. We associate Wittgenstein’s early work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, with the analytical school of thought. This work argued for a very black-and-white “picture theory” of language that states that language’s foundations are in the logically constructed picture of the world that we attempt to describe; there is a necessary relationship between terms and the things in the world that they refer to. We associate Wittgenstein’s later work, Philosophical Investigations, with the continental school of thought. This work argued for a much more open-ended theory of language that states that meaning is in a constant state of flux, according to its context. We play “language games” in order to communicate as precisely as we can within a given context.
My purpose in this forthcoming essay is to show that Wittgenstein’s two theories of language can, in some sense, coexist, and more broadly, that the respective schools of thought that they gave rise to must coexist if we are to advance thought. I will do so by devising two concepts. The first concept is called the logical reductionism fallacy, which will expose the problems of applying strict a priori ideals to meaning, in this case, as applied to language. The second concept, which will be the focus of this essay, is called current methods of usage. It will allow me to explain that, though we need to apply certain logical skills – that the “picture theory” can provide – in order to use language properly in a particular time and place, we should accept that Wittgenstein’s later theory much more accurately describes the general nature of language.”
Overthought Consulting 