Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy?

by Ian Hacking

Many people find themselves dissatisfied with recent linguistic philosophy, and yet know that language has always mattered deeply to philosophy and must in some sense continue to do so. Ian Hacking considers here some dozen case studies in the history of philosophy to show the different ways in which language has been important, and the consequences for the development of the subject. There are chapters on, among others, Hobbes, Berkeley, Russell, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Feyerabend and Davidson. Dr Hacking ends by speculating about the directions in which philosophy and the study of language seem likely to go. The book will provide students with a stimulating, broad survey of problems in the theory of meaning and the development of philosophy, particularly in this century. The topics treated in the philosophy of language are among the central, current concerns of philosophers, and the historical framework makes it possible to introduce concretely and intelligibly all the main theoretical issues.

Genres: Philosophy, Language, Linguistics, Nonfiction

180 pages, Hardcover

First published September 26, 1975

About the author

Ian Hacking is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, specialised in the History of Science.

Wikipedia entry

Reviews

[Alex Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

I generally like Hacking's work, although I found this to be a little too superficial. I think that to really answer this question Hacking needs to approach the matter in a fresh way; not one that is derived from various traditional sources. While many of those approaches have value insight, their theories are generally developed from highly speculative bases, which can, at worse, be completely fictional. The fact that Hacking chose to present a series of essays as the approach belies his lack of confidence in any one approach -- this dilutes any answer because each essay can have, at each basis -- the essays pull us in different directions without often speaking to one another.

Honestly this should be been put forth as an "introduction to..." which is how it is useful, but not at all useful to answering or adequately exploring the title question.

[James Klagge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really I should have read this 40 years ago. It came out just as I was planning to go to graduate school to, as I thought, study philosophy of language. I was writing an undergraduate honors thesis on Donald Davidson, and Hacking had a substantial chapter on Davidson. Here's what Hacking writes about Davidson's work (p. 129): "[His] essays are uncompromisingly professional….These papers of Davidson are compact, allusive, half the length that is usual in contemporary journals of philosophy, and vastly more intricate. They are not easy to understand, and often take for granted quite technical results in the philosophy of logic." Oddly, I never took a general survey course in philosophy of language, I just picked it up here and there in various courses and books. This book gives an interesting historical and broad presentation of language philosophy, which I never had and could have used. Still, the book inevitably shows its age (and my age).

[Kenzie · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book mostly details different analytic philosophers' relationship to the question of language in philosophy: Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Ayer, and a few others.

Language matters because, in the same way that ideas functioned in the seventeenth century, sentences “serve as the interface between the knowing subject and what is known. The sentence matters even more if we begin to dispense with the fiction of a knowing subject, and regard discourse as autonomous. . . . [D:]iscourse itself has tried to recognize the historical situation in which it finds itself, no longer merely a tool by which experiences are shared, no longer even the interface between the knower and the known, but as that which constitutes human knowledge” (187).

I struggle to see how discourse can be autonomous; it starts sounding like Dawkins’s selfish memes. I think Foucault has a better concept of discourse and the constructed self.

[Edmundo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful book that manages to identify major trends of philosophy. The viewpoint of Hacking is very nuanced, he clearly identifies three major trends which he calls the "heyday of ideas", "the heyday of meanings", and "the heyday of meanings". I think he is very accurate in this classification of the history of philosophy. I especially like that it concludes saying that we are seeing a return to meaning, that the Davidsonian/Quinean path is not the only way forward. I believe the same goes for ideas and older conceptions of meaning. Philosophy finds itself in very trendy waves sometimes, and it takes effort not to be swept away with them. Hacking seems capable of seeing how these trends aren't necessarily something one must go along with, which I find quite comforting.

I don't know, the execution of this book is very well done. The writing is beautifully clear, the historical accounts are accurate, the conclusions seem to follow from what he presents. Hacking has a great temperament and a very nice style. It's a good book, perhaps best for someone who isn't looking for an all-too detailed discussion of how language relates to philosophy. He is mainly tracing the history of language's relation to philosophy, and he does this very well, but there is not a lot of opining going on, which is both good and bad. I think more needs to be said than "language matters to philosophy in different ways depending on the historical period and author", which is what I think Hacking is essentially doing. But in which way should language relate to philosophy? Do we need a theory of meaning? Do we need some kind of explicit account of how philosophy should use and view language?

I'm not sure. Good book, in any case.

[Jay Paine · Rating 5 out of 5]

My philosophy of language professor recommended Hacking’s work for summer reading, and I’m glad I gave it a read. The book is divided into three major sections: the heyday of ideas, meaning, and sentences. The way the chapters are divided helped me to understand how 17th and 18th century conceptions of ideas and language evolved into theorizing meaning itself, especially in the works of Chomsky.

Hacking touches on a number of famous philosophers, including Hobbes, Berkeley, Chomsky, Russell, Wittgenstein, and more. I do wish he had spent a little more time on Locke. Toward the end Hacking delves into formal logic, of which I have some experience. However, these sections were most difficult to understand, and I felt more detailed explanation could have been offered.

While I’ve studied Classical Latin and Greek and have some familiarity with the adjacent subject of linguistics, this was my first introduction to the philosophy of language. Going forward, I am most curious about Russell and Wittgenstein’s thoughts on language and private meaning.