Composition or Proposition? The Ontology of the Philosophical Work and the Language Issue in Contemporary Philosophy
Enrico Terrone & Filippo Contesi
ABSTRACT:
Which kind of entity is a philosophical work? Is it a composition comparable to a literary work, that is, a text the proper evaluation of which requires that it is read in the language in which it was originally written? Or is it a system of propositions like a scientific theory, which can be properly evaluated independently of the language in which it was originally written?[1] The answer to this dilemma is crucial in order to establish whether and to what extent there might be a language issue in contemporary philosophy. In this paper we will explore both hypotheses and argue that both raise their own language issues for contemporary philosophy.
According to the first hypothesis, the philosophical work is a sort of literary composition the value of which essentially depends on the language in which it was written, just as a literary work does. If this is the case, then there seems to be something wrong in contemporary philosophy, inasmuch as scholars whose native language is not English write most of their works in English. Writers and poets who are not native English speakers do not need to, nor do they usually write their literary works in English. By contrast, philosophers who are not native English speakers often need to write their papers and books in English if they want to be properly appreciated in their area of research, especially if these areas belong to the field of analytic philosophy.[2] Moreover, if the philosophical work is a sort of literary text in which argumentation and persuasion are strictly intertwined, then the mastery of the language of writing is a crucial skill for a philosopher. From a literary point of view, the native speaker philosopher has an advantage similar to that of a painter who can use many more colors than other painters to paint her pictures. If mastery of the language is a crucial resource for a philosopher, then the fact that some philosophers can use their own native language while others cannot appears to constitute a sort of injustice.[3] The competition among philosophers appears to be fair but in fact it is not. Some competitors can exploit linguistic resources that are not accessible to others, and if argumentation and persuasion are strictly intertwined, those resources will be crucial in the achievements of a philosophical work.
According to the second hypothesis, a philosophical work is a system of propositions comparable to a scientific theory. The language is just the vehicle in which the propositions are articulated, but it does not bear upon the content expressed by those propositions. This seems to be the dominant view implicitly upheld in contemporary analytic philosophy. In this case the use of English as the lingua franca of the philosophical debate do not seem to raise any form of injustice, inasmuch as the English language is just the form in which to codify a theory that can be conceived and articulated equally well in whatever language. At most, a philosopher who is a non-native English speaker will need to spend more time than her native English speaker colleagues to achieve the same results, but this may not be enough to raise a claim of injustice. Yet it is questionable that the those who assess philosophical work really share this view of what a philosophical work is. It is doubtful that peer-reviewers of the most visible journals in analytic philosophy really assess a philosophical work as a system of propositions the value of which is independent from the literary qualities of the text in which it is codified. In particular, it is doubtful that the same referees are aware of and immune from a linguistic bias that can lead them to disqualify the line of argumentation of a philosophical work written by non-native English speaker philosophers because the language is not fluent and brilliant enough and therefore the argumentation is not supported by some appealing rhetoric effect of persuasion. It is moreover questionable that, post-publication, the philosophical community more generally does not assess the quality of philosophical writing partly on the basis of its literary qualities.[4]
Ultimately, in order to avoid a language issue and consequent linguistic injustice, philosophers who adopt English as their lingua franca should reflect in more depth to the nature of a philosophical work. We argue that only a conception of the philosophical work as a system of propositions is compatible with the adoption of a lingua franca such as English, which is the native language of some philosophers but not of others. Furthermore, we argue that even this conception of the philosophical work is not sufficient to avoid a linguistic issue. This conception is to be made explicit, shared by the research community as a whole, and effectively contribute to the process of assessment of philosophical works.
Notes
[1] We take ourselves to elaborate here on a question raised in Saray Ayala, Philosophy and the Non-Native Speaker Condition”, APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, 14:2, 2—9, 7. Ayala asks: “When we do philosophy in English, is linguistic competence a part of philosophical competence, or, rather, a prerequisite for expressing philosophical competence?””. This question or, as we call it, “dilemma”, was in turn anticipated in Gabriele Contessa, “Logic versus Rhetoric in Philosophical Argumentation”, Yet Another Philosopher’s Blog?!?, http://yetanotherphilosophersblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/logic-versus-rhetoric-in-philosophical.html, 2014.
[2] Consider for instance how works in scepticism and philosophy of science written by Latin American writers are relegated to separate entries in the following Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles: Otávio Bueno, “Skepticism in Latin America”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, forthcoming, and Alberto Cordero, “Philosophy of Science in Latin America”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phil-science-latin-america/, 2015.
[3] Philippe Van Parijs, Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World, Oxford University Press, 2011.
[4] Eric Schwitzgebel, “The 267 Most-Cited Contemporary Authors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, The Splintered Mind, http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.fr/2014/08/the-266-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html, 2014.
Which kind of entity is a philosophical work? Is it a composition comparable to a literary work, that is, a text the proper evaluation of which requires that it is read in the language in which it was originally written? Or is it a system of propositions like a scientific theory, which can be properly evaluated independently of the language in which it was originally written?[1] The answer to this dilemma is crucial in order to establish whether and to what extent there might be a language issue in contemporary philosophy. In this paper we will explore both hypotheses and argue that both raise their own language issues for contemporary philosophy.
According to the first hypothesis, the philosophical work is a sort of literary composition the value of which essentially depends on the language in which it was written, just as a literary work does. If this is the case, then there seems to be something wrong in contemporary philosophy, inasmuch as scholars whose native language is not English write most of their works in English. Writers and poets who are not native English speakers do not need to, nor do they usually write their literary works in English. By contrast, philosophers who are not native English speakers often need to write their papers and books in English if they want to be properly appreciated in their area of research, especially if these areas belong to the field of analytic philosophy.[2] Moreover, if the philosophical work is a sort of literary text in which argumentation and persuasion are strictly intertwined, then the mastery of the language of writing is a crucial skill for a philosopher. From a literary point of view, the native speaker philosopher has an advantage similar to that of a painter who can use many more colors than other painters to paint her pictures. If mastery of the language is a crucial resource for a philosopher, then the fact that some philosophers can use their own native language while others cannot appears to constitute a sort of injustice.[3] The competition among philosophers appears to be fair but in fact it is not. Some competitors can exploit linguistic resources that are not accessible to others, and if argumentation and persuasion are strictly intertwined, those resources will be crucial in the achievements of a philosophical work.
According to the second hypothesis, a philosophical work is a system of propositions comparable to a scientific theory. The language is just the vehicle in which the propositions are articulated, but it does not bear upon the content expressed by those propositions. This seems to be the dominant view implicitly upheld in contemporary analytic philosophy. In this case the use of English as the lingua franca of the philosophical debate do not seem to raise any form of injustice, inasmuch as the English language is just the form in which to codify a theory that can be conceived and articulated equally well in whatever language. At most, a philosopher who is a non-native English speaker will need to spend more time than her native English speaker colleagues to achieve the same results, but this may not be enough to raise a claim of injustice. Yet it is questionable that the those who assess philosophical work really share this view of what a philosophical work is. It is doubtful that peer-reviewers of the most visible journals in analytic philosophy really assess a philosophical work as a system of propositions the value of which is independent from the literary qualities of the text in which it is codified. In particular, it is doubtful that the same referees are aware of and immune from a linguistic bias that can lead them to disqualify the line of argumentation of a philosophical work written by non-native English speaker philosophers because the language is not fluent and brilliant enough and therefore the argumentation is not supported by some appealing rhetoric effect of persuasion. It is moreover questionable that, post-publication, the philosophical community more generally does not assess the quality of philosophical writing partly on the basis of its literary qualities.[4]
Ultimately, in order to avoid a language issue and consequent linguistic injustice, philosophers who adopt English as their lingua franca should reflect in more depth to the nature of a philosophical work. We argue that only a conception of the philosophical work as a system of propositions is compatible with the adoption of a lingua franca such as English, which is the native language of some philosophers but not of others. Furthermore, we argue that even this conception of the philosophical work is not sufficient to avoid a linguistic issue. This conception is to be made explicit, shared by the research community as a whole, and effectively contribute to the process of assessment of philosophical works.
Notes
[1] We take ourselves to elaborate here on a question raised in Saray Ayala, Philosophy and the Non-Native Speaker Condition”, APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, 14:2, 2—9, 7. Ayala asks: “When we do philosophy in English, is linguistic competence a part of philosophical competence, or, rather, a prerequisite for expressing philosophical competence?””. This question or, as we call it, “dilemma”, was in turn anticipated in Gabriele Contessa, “Logic versus Rhetoric in Philosophical Argumentation”, Yet Another Philosopher’s Blog?!?, http://yetanotherphilosophersblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/logic-versus-rhetoric-in-philosophical.html, 2014.
[2] Consider for instance how works in scepticism and philosophy of science written by Latin American writers are relegated to separate entries in the following Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles: Otávio Bueno, “Skepticism in Latin America”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, forthcoming, and Alberto Cordero, “Philosophy of Science in Latin America”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phil-science-latin-america/, 2015.
[3] Philippe Van Parijs, Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World, Oxford University Press, 2011.
[4] Eric Schwitzgebel, “The 267 Most-Cited Contemporary Authors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, The Splintered Mind, http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.fr/2014/08/the-266-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html, 2014.