Philosophy is basically about words and their meanings, isn't it? You might say, basically yes, but isn't every discipline about Words and their meanings? Yes, but they are never defined as such.
For instance, Economics, what is it, we define economics on the basis of an assumption of "Scarcity". We assume that the reader knows that natural resources are scarce. Without it, Economics has no meaning. But this one word on which the whole discipline is, in a way depended, remains as an unsaid assumption of the discipline. These unsaid assumptions are in every subject, that is basically the essence of the discipline.
But when we talk about Philosophy, the spooky thing about Philosophy is, even if we try to define its territories, we begin with word breakdown, and say, "Love for knowledge", The central assumption here is perhaps, "Human beings have the ability and willingness to know". But This is such a wide assumption, that it seems like this discipline is like an element in its own set.
Like, In Set theory, Consider, a set of all sets that deals with disciplines of knowledge. Like, in the set builder format.
X = {x: x is a discipline dealing with knowledge}
Now, If X set you defined as Philosophy, is not one of the elements of X, that is x, not philosophy? It is right. That is, Philosophy is the meta-discipline that is self-contained. It is contained within itself. In other words, the only discipline that is self-aware.
What are the implications of this? One of the implications is what I call, Discoursing.
In Philosophy, we see philosophers like me, being a wannabe. What is the difference between a wannabe philosopher and a real philosopher? In 90% of the times, nothing, but in reality, a lot. A real Philosopher deals with meanings, or its crisis and abundance. A pseudo-philosopher deals with words. In essence, his whole analysis, his whole work revolves around words, giving new words to some old meanings.
He is not creating newer meanings to older words, which is one of the ways of authentic Philosophizing. He just discourses. He just defines something as something which is either previously defined or gives just a vague meaning or gives even sometimes an empty meaning.
When does a word have an empty meaning? I came across a question that has confused me for 10-12 years. What is the difference between the words, "Business" and "Buisness"?
Isn't this a common confusion? Yes, it is. You might also get confused. But in reality, what is it? Business comes from the word, Busy or Buzz relating to action, or dynamism. So, Business is the act of being busy. This is the etymological meaning. Historical accumulation of meaning happens, and Business gets a modern meaning, relating to trade of goods and services.
But what is Buisness? It is nothing basically. There is no word as such. There is no business of Buisness being in the word business. But, that itself, the major flaw of the word, becomes a meaning of the word. I searched it on Wiktionary. And you will be surprised to find out that this is exactly the meaning of Buisness.
This is what I am talking about. The meaning of Buisness is empty. There is no meaning. Hence, there should not be, ideally, a word "buisness". But, the sole relation of falsehood, the misspelling of business, itself gives this false word "Buisness", a meaning.
As if, the word would have begun when a confused soul like me forgot the spelling of Business and wrote buisness. And then it occurred to many people such that this legit becomes a word of its own negation.
This is what discoursing is, in essence. Discoursing, I define, as the pseudo-philosophizing practice, an attempt to philosophize when you either mis-define, re-define or even un-define an already defined concept or word.
This is the beauty of philosophy. It can call out, "False Philosophies" through authentic philosophies.
This, in essence, has what's been happening to Indian Philosophy or Adhyatm also. Every new thinker in Adhyatm, came and said, that the before philosophies were Pseudo.
The word "Discoursing" itself might then be a truer, authentic philosophy with a legit new meaning, which is, the discourse of giving false discourses.
The implications of this will be multi-fold. Not only words can be called out for the pseudo-meanings, but also, meanings can be called out for their repetition in words, more so, what does it say about human mind? Human mind is more and more similar to machines. It understands words more and meanings less.
I find this in my friends and in general with people of okay intelligence. When I will say things like these where a newly formed idea, which I have sort of coined. They look at me with a view of dis-belief, as if it is not understandable to them. As if, they cannot understand the meaning in its naked self, that is in a descriptive form.
For example, If I say to them, you know, words have two meanings, Etymological and historical. With history, Words accumulate meanings, just like capital is accumulated within itself. These newer meanings may or may not have anything to do with the original meaning of the word and many a times, the meaning is totally different or anti-thetical to the original meaning. They said, they don't understand it.
But, then I say, I choose to define this concept as, "Historical accumulation of meaning". Then they say, "Oh! Now we get it!"
Somehow just giving it a name, makes them more comfortable with the meaning. As Jaun Elia says,
Yahan Maani Ka Be Soorat Sila Naeen
Ajab kuch maine socha hai, Likha naeen!
or, to give a translation, "Here, in this world, there is no meaning of a meaning without a word."
But anyone, who understands philosophy, should know that meanings exist. That is the proof of God. Meanings exist independent of words. Words are our invention. But meanings? Aren't they, our invention? This will require another blog. We need to find out, "Is intelligence and intelligibility our invention?"
Till then, I leave you with the concept of "Discoursing".
No comments:
Post a Comment