Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

And Rosta wrote:

>
> Given the view of language as a tool, which is not illegitimate
> (and not even impoverished, if we hold that it is a poetical
> tool and a tool for embodying culture), then as with any tool
> it is possible to articulate a set of criteria to gauge how
> well a given design succeeds in performing the functions the
> tool is to serve.
But the problem is, language *isn't* a tool.  A telephone is a
tool.  A writing system is a tool.  But a language is no more a
tool than my foot is a tool: it's a part of what it means to be
human.  Even if you don't buy Chomsky (and I don't, completely),
it's hard to get away from the fact that language is at least
somewhat inherent.

Replies