It's been a few months, but I recall being on board with the overall thesis. We live in a shared reality, and that reality puts constraints on what words might mean in various contexts. And the principle of generosity means we have to reference that reality when parsing people's sentences.
I do think an argument can be made that language, and the culture in which it developed, do have nuanced effects on how we perceive things. The classic example is in how we divide the colors of the rainbow. (Can't recall if that gets discussed in the book.) A rainbow is a continuous spectrum, but we perceive it as rows of colors. Supposedly different cultures see the row transitions at different points..
But this seems more about how we divide up and categorize a phenomenon rather than a radical difference in perception. And it seems a far cry from the alternate realities some anthropologists claim.
I'm glad you brought up the issue of how language affects perception because the book doesn't get into it, but I think those things are worth addressing since they seem to get a lot of press, often with hyperbolic headlines that aren't supported by the evidence given in the articles. I think a while ago I sent you a video link to a talk John McWhorter gave about the color issue, but unfortunately I can't seem to find it. I did find the experiment he refers to (in Russian there are different words for light blue and dark blue and so Russians can discriminate between those colors a wee bit faster than speakers of languages that don't make the distinction in their language):
I managed to find another lecture in which McWhorter talks about points he made in his book, "The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in any Language." Worth checking out for a linguist's perspective, in case anyone's interested (McWhorter is a fabulously entertaining lecturer):
The basic idea of all of the above is that, yes, the language you grow up speaking may shape the way you perceive things to a minor degree, but unless those minor differences cannot be translated (in other words, unless English speakers are incapable of seeing the difference between dark blue and light blue), the claim that language shapes our "worldview" is vastly overblown.
McWhorter, by the way, isn't challenging the strong form of linguistic relativism. He's arguing against even the weak version.
His book would be a great supplement to Truth and Generosity. He would cover the linguistic territory while we delve deeper into the philosophical implications of his conclusions. For instance, what lies behind what Stephen Pinker calls "the euphemism treadmill"? Neal didn't have the phrase "euphemism treadmill" at his disposal, but we discuss what drives it in the book.
Thanks again for bringing these issues up, Mike. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the rest of the book!
Thanks Tina. I think you've linked me to that talk before, or at least Youtube shows me having watched a substantial portion of it. And I definitely recall his skepticism.
I don't recall hearing that phrase before: "euphemism treadmill", but of course as soon as I looked it up I knew what it was talking about. And I've read a couple of Pinker books, so he might have mentioned it in one of them. And of course if you guys discuss the concept in the book, I got it there as well, but it will be good to get reminded of your points.
The first time I heard about the "euphemism treadmill" was on one of McWhorter's talks or books ( I can't remember where). Part of why I wanted to publish the book this way (or re-publish, rather) is to talk about some of these peripheral issues that I didn't feel really belonged in the book, but that are interesting to talk about. The euphemism treadmill is one of the big ones, at least for me, but it gets talked about in a different way in the chapter on semantic change. I'm tempted to jump the gun, but I'll hold back! :)
I've already shared my mostly positive reaction to the book in a couple of posts at my WordPress blog, Staggering Implications. Looking back, I see that I left something up in the air: the idea that incommensurate languages may actually be at play in the current state of United States politics, indeed in the dialogue (such as it is) between Left and Right. It sometimes seems as if the two sides are talking past one another: in effect, speaking different languages.
I've talked about this here and there on my blog. As your series unfolds, I may have a chance to expand on the idea. Unfortunately I'll be travelling for the next few weeks, and again in July, but I'll try to stay plugged in.
That would be a GREAT topic for Chapter 2! I think that would make a nice poll as well. Thanks for the idea! Can't wait to hear your thoughts on our national 'dialogue'.
And thank you too for all of your insights on the book, as well as your reading recommendations. I'm a few pages away from finishing Colin McGinn's book, The Making of a Philosopher, and learning a lot about the basics of analytic philosophy and that stuff I missed out on in my education—and without too much work on my part, which is the key point! :)
Have a great trip!
For anyone in the future who's interested, here's a link to chapter 2, Violations of the Principle of Generosity:
It's been a few months, but I recall being on board with the overall thesis. We live in a shared reality, and that reality puts constraints on what words might mean in various contexts. And the principle of generosity means we have to reference that reality when parsing people's sentences.
I do think an argument can be made that language, and the culture in which it developed, do have nuanced effects on how we perceive things. The classic example is in how we divide the colors of the rainbow. (Can't recall if that gets discussed in the book.) A rainbow is a continuous spectrum, but we perceive it as rows of colors. Supposedly different cultures see the row transitions at different points..
But this seems more about how we divide up and categorize a phenomenon rather than a radical difference in perception. And it seems a far cry from the alternate realities some anthropologists claim.
Thanks Mike!
I'm glad you brought up the issue of how language affects perception because the book doesn't get into it, but I think those things are worth addressing since they seem to get a lot of press, often with hyperbolic headlines that aren't supported by the evidence given in the articles. I think a while ago I sent you a video link to a talk John McWhorter gave about the color issue, but unfortunately I can't seem to find it. I did find the experiment he refers to (in Russian there are different words for light blue and dark blue and so Russians can discriminate between those colors a wee bit faster than speakers of languages that don't make the distinction in their language):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876524/
I managed to find another lecture in which McWhorter talks about points he made in his book, "The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in any Language." Worth checking out for a linguist's perspective, in case anyone's interested (McWhorter is a fabulously entertaining lecturer):
https://youtu.be/QglKeIIC5Ds?si=xsn7XAn2C7-MnQDX&t=279
The basic idea of all of the above is that, yes, the language you grow up speaking may shape the way you perceive things to a minor degree, but unless those minor differences cannot be translated (in other words, unless English speakers are incapable of seeing the difference between dark blue and light blue), the claim that language shapes our "worldview" is vastly overblown.
McWhorter, by the way, isn't challenging the strong form of linguistic relativism. He's arguing against even the weak version.
His book would be a great supplement to Truth and Generosity. He would cover the linguistic territory while we delve deeper into the philosophical implications of his conclusions. For instance, what lies behind what Stephen Pinker calls "the euphemism treadmill"? Neal didn't have the phrase "euphemism treadmill" at his disposal, but we discuss what drives it in the book.
Thanks again for bringing these issues up, Mike. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the rest of the book!
Thanks Tina. I think you've linked me to that talk before, or at least Youtube shows me having watched a substantial portion of it. And I definitely recall his skepticism.
I don't recall hearing that phrase before: "euphemism treadmill", but of course as soon as I looked it up I knew what it was talking about. And I've read a couple of Pinker books, so he might have mentioned it in one of them. And of course if you guys discuss the concept in the book, I got it there as well, but it will be good to get reminded of your points.
The first time I heard about the "euphemism treadmill" was on one of McWhorter's talks or books ( I can't remember where). Part of why I wanted to publish the book this way (or re-publish, rather) is to talk about some of these peripheral issues that I didn't feel really belonged in the book, but that are interesting to talk about. The euphemism treadmill is one of the big ones, at least for me, but it gets talked about in a different way in the chapter on semantic change. I'm tempted to jump the gun, but I'll hold back! :)
I've already shared my mostly positive reaction to the book in a couple of posts at my WordPress blog, Staggering Implications. Looking back, I see that I left something up in the air: the idea that incommensurate languages may actually be at play in the current state of United States politics, indeed in the dialogue (such as it is) between Left and Right. It sometimes seems as if the two sides are talking past one another: in effect, speaking different languages.
I've talked about this here and there on my blog. As your series unfolds, I may have a chance to expand on the idea. Unfortunately I'll be travelling for the next few weeks, and again in July, but I'll try to stay plugged in.
That would be a GREAT topic for Chapter 2! I think that would make a nice poll as well. Thanks for the idea! Can't wait to hear your thoughts on our national 'dialogue'.
And thank you too for all of your insights on the book, as well as your reading recommendations. I'm a few pages away from finishing Colin McGinn's book, The Making of a Philosopher, and learning a lot about the basics of analytic philosophy and that stuff I missed out on in my education—and without too much work on my part, which is the key point! :)
Have a great trip!
For anyone in the future who's interested, here's a link to chapter 2, Violations of the Principle of Generosity:
https://open.substack.com/pub/philosophyandfiction/p/truth-and-generosity-how-truth-makes-453?r=schg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Also, links to Jim's blog posts:
Part 1. https://staggeringimplications.wordpress.com/2023/12/05/truth-generosity-part-i-an-oblique-review/
Part 2. https://staggeringimplications.wordpress.com/2023/12/07/truth-generosity-part-ii-connections-to-betweenness/
Oops. I accidentally clicked on the poll and answered, "It will make you sexist, racist..." Not what I would have answered. :)