My icon is a reference to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s beetle-in-a-box thought experiment. Briefly, it paints a picture of a world where everyone is in possession of a box, that only they can look inside, containing a “beetle.” In this world, every individual can only learn what is meant by “beetle” by looking inside their box, and no one ever sees inside another person’s box.
Wittgenstein argues that the word “beetle,” in such a world, cannot actually refer to something, since each individual could have something different, nothing at all, or something changing inside their boxes. So, the idea is that whatever is in the boxes is actually irrelevant to the way that the word “beetle” is used in the language.
Generalizing a bit, one can argue that the only relevant part of words referring to private states (e.g. mental states) is how the word is used in the language. If taken to an extreme, we could apply the reasoning to say that the only relevant aspect of any part of a word is how it is used inside the language. From this perspective, one can view all language as a performative language game which the speakers participate in. So, a word or gesture’s use is wholly defined by how it is used, and the participants socialize others into the use of the parts of language to play the language game.
I’m far from qualified to comment on the “correctness” of Wittgenstein’s philosophy or the strength of rebuttals to it. For those interested in some rigorous philosophy, I’ll just leave a pointer to the relevant SEP article. I care more about using it to inform pragmatic views in my own life.
First, I think Wittgenstein’s perspective can help people to understand the role of language games in our every day and academic conversations. Approaching conversations with a clear intention helps focus language usage to get specific points across. When I find myself going off on tangents or using confusing language, I remind myself about the intent of my language game. Usually, this leads me to either use simplified language, move past a tangent point, and/or focus on what’s being communicated rather than what’s “actually in the box” (wordless concepts/values/ideas in my head) because the only important part of a conversation is what was communicated.
My other practical takeaway is to view all language as a language game that we are socialized into, whether we’re aware of it or not. People who appear to have ineffective communication skills often have different socialization or values. Unfortunately, I view most language (games) as a sometimes necessary means to an end, and sometimes people end up in those games without effective strategies for communicating with me. So, when I talk with people, I try to reinterpret what they say from a few different perspectives and maybe tone up or down their passionate rhetoric. Not every pair of people have the same communicative preferences, but everyone can take steps to understand others’ strategies in the language games we all have to play.
These thoughts and takeaways are of course not exclusive to myself and Wittgenstein. After learning more about linguistics, I’ve refined my view of language, but the field has mostly affirmed my Wittgenstein-ian leanings.
There are many great writers and thinkers, which have more fleshed out views than my own. I haven’t had a chance to read them all (yet!), but I’ll but some books related to my views below:
Written: 2023-09
Last updated: 2024-01 (typos, grammar, and further reading)