'People say again and again that philosophy doesn't really progress, that we are still occupied with the same philosophical problems as were the Greeks. But the peple who say that don't understand why this has to be so. It is because our language has remained the same and keeps seducing us into asking the same questions.
Ludwig Wittgenstein- explaining succinctly his 'language is the problem' theory'

'The later Wittgenstein used to talk of 'puzzles', caused by the philosophical misuse of language. I can only say that if I had no serious philosophical problems and no hope of solving them, I should have no excuse for being a philosopher: to my mind there would be no apology for philosophy.'
Karl Popper, with a trade-mark dig at Wittgenstein, dismissing language puzzles as part of the most pressing

'Thank you for not giving me platitudes, but something that was complex and dark and strong.'
Rahael in reply to Deb's startlingly powerful post down below somewhere.

************** I need an OnM-ish line-break here. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Litany

The soundtrack then was a litany - candlewick
bedspread three piece suite display cabinet -
and stiff-haired wives balanced their red smiles,
passing the catalogue. Pyrex. A tiny ladder
ran up Mrs Barr's American Tan leg, sly
like a rumour. Language embarrassed them.

The terrible marriages crackled, cellophane
round polyester shirts, and then The Lounge
would seem to bristle with eyes, hard
as the bright stones in engagement rings,
and sharp hands poised over biscuits as a word
was spelled out. An embarrassing word, broken
to bits, which tensed the air like an accident.

This was the code I learnt at my mother's knee, pretending
to read, where no one had cancer, or sex, or debts,
and certainly not leukaemia, which no one could spell.
The year a mass grave of wasps bobbed in a jam-jar;
a butterfly stammered itself in my curious hands.

A boy in the playground, I said, told me
to fuck off; and a thrilled, malicious pause
salted my tongue like an imminent storm. Then
uproar. I'm sorry, Mrs Barr, Mrs Hunt, Mrs Emery,
sorry, Mrs Raine. Yes, I can summon their names.
My mother's mute shame. The taste of soap.

Carol Ann Duffy (our real Poet Laureate) on language.

*********** Yes, quite infectious.

I've been shocked and deeply moved by this little board this week. For several reasons. Things have hit me about it in the last week. It is incredibly flexible. One thread can talk about people's experiences of abuse, while another is, (not disrespectfully) talking about foodstuffs made out of Buffy lines. There's a great range of style. While being entirely composed of typed words, I have felt part of a dislocated community, living together in cyberspace, but so far apart in the world. And this week I feel really indebted to everyone who had contributed to Deb's thread on Death, Rape and the whole Controversial Thing, (as Rahael would have it). So many people have put across experiences and opinions based on them which have both been valuable to me, and almost moved me to tears. I didn't feel I could contribute, as, being a sheltered, middle class, young-ish student, I was simply worried that I would lapse into default platitudes to cover up my naivety- my inability to begin to imagine what some people have been through, and my essential lack of words necessary to even acknowledge that, in being on this board, I meet people who have experienced more of the world than I have.

To summarise, it is an immense joy to me to read every single post, of all natures, and it is a gift to me that anyone writes here, (and of course, that they're able to. Somebody knight Masq.)

The inadequacy of language to explain things led me back to a book I have just finished, called 'Wittgenstein's Poker'. It also led me back to Carol Ann Duffy, my favourite contemporary poet. How does language affect or constitute the great problems of philosophy? How does language affect us? And how is language used in the Buffyverse? The following ramble is, I hope, some attempt to repay the immense debt that I owe to this board's posters, for the thoughts which they throw out almost casually for my pleasure.

*********** I love these things.

Language is not the only way in which we express ourselves. How many times have we heard the sentence: 'X% of communication is non-verbal'? (usually with the X wildly varying, but usually well-above 50%). However, here on this board, in a very real sense, it is. Body language is stripped away, as is tone of voice. It has an enabling effect, as well as the much commented-on drawbacks. We can't establish so easily when people are being playful, are genuinely angry, or are intending generosity but actually portray cruellness of some kind. But on the other hand, I suspect that the board does allow people to express opinions more easily than everyday life in other ways. As little as I wish to admit it, I suspect subconsciously that my lack of knowldege over many people's gender, age and location actually helps me in dealing with arguments head-on. I don't spend time thinking that people's viewpoints are bound to be different, so why bother. I also don't feel as intimidated by people as I might do if I knew that they were 30 years older than me, (which might just be true in some cases). Any subconscious prejudices of vision are swept away too. In a sense, this is one of the most pure forms of language communication you will find anywhere. So how important is language to the way we think? Is language in fact the only restriction on philosophical progress. Are there no real Philosophical Problems? This was the question posed in Cambridge on 25, October 1946.

My knowledge of Popper and Wittgenstein's philosophies stems entirely from the book 'Wittgenstein's Poker', by Dave Edmonds and John Eidinow. I don' claim in any way to be an expert on these philosophers, just a keen reader, interested in linking their thoughts, (or an 'explained to the layman' version of them) to my own experiences, here particularly of language.

In the book, it is explained how Wittgenstein and Popper were two of the greatest philosophical minds of the 20th century. And how, to Popper, (the younger and less established of the two), Wittgenstein's views were entirely useless. He set himself up diametrically opposed to Wittgenstein's views, particularly on just what it is possible to know.

On 10/25/1946 (I'm getting those American dates), Popper was a guest speaker at the Moral Science Club, an institution led by Wittgenstein, the pre-eminent philosopher at Cambridge. It is the only time the two men met. Popper's paper addressed the question 'Are there Philosophical Problems?'. He put forward that they were, and that the attitude of Wittgenstein, of saying the Problems were only puzzles with language, was insufficient. There are problems not created by language which need to be addressed. These included inductions and ethics. Wittgenstein was angered and appalled by this statement which was obviously made to challenge his core assertions. These assertions had made him the most famous philosopher in the world, and inspired the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle. With his trademark nervous energy, he brandished a poker at Popper, telling him that he was incorrect. Shortly afterwards Wittgenstein, riled, left the meeting slamming the door behind him.

The crux of this story is that, at some point of the debate, Popper was asked, (either by Wittgenstein or one of his Cambridge acolytes), for an example of an empirical moral rule. Popper replied: 'It is a moral rule never to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers'. Argument rages as to whether, as Popper writes assuredly in his autobiography, Popper said this to Wittgenstein, or whether he merely offered it back to the room after Wittgenstein had left. The real truth of this matter seems like it will never be known.

What consequences do these two appraisals have for our lives? In Wittgenstein's view, all Philosophy is a mire of inter-tangled definitions of words. Language creates the problems. There are only puzzles Here at Voy, the questions of moral ambiguity are only intriguin puzzles in language. The Logical Positivists, (whom Wittgenstein inspired, but largely disagreed with), asserted that a sentence is only meaningful if it is verifiable. Either it is true by definition, [an intrinsic truth like: 'the moon is a lunar object'- merely playing with language] or it is true if it can be shown by experiment, [eggs have always smashed on concrete floors]. All other statements are irrelevant amusements. 'There is a God' is not intrinsically truw by definition, nor verifiable, and is therefore not worth discussing as a serious truth.

This is a 'puzzling' dilemma for our little room. Are all our little disagreements about things that don't really matter? Are we searching without any chance of finding. Is the grey ground not worth looking at. Or, as Wittgenstein put it, is 'the deep insayable?' Are the puzzling, profound questions that we ask ultimately without an answer in language. Are we just amusing ourselves, but never learning about our ultimate situation here?

Popper dismissed this argument. There were real problems in the real world. We need to know that totalitarianism is wrong. The Logical Postivist argument was false anyway, in his opinion, as to claim eggs break on concrete floors one would have to check every egg on every concrete floor, an action both impossible and severely damaging to us omelette-lovers.He said that something can be shown to be false if there is one counterexample, an aspect of philosophy which has been thoroughly applied to the maths syllabus I now study, (between lengthy voy rambles, of course). Popper inspired many people, including, oddly enough, Margaret Thatcher, who cited him as her favourite philosopher. But Popper, ultimately, saw the Philosophical Problems. He would perhaps have been interested in, 'Should Buffy forgive Spike?': 'Was Giles right to kill Ben?', and 'Did the Parking Ticket Lady deserved to have her wheel clamped'? For him, ethics was part of philosophy, and a truth about how we exist could grow out of the problems in the real world, outside language.

********** Is this one strictly necessary? Probably not.

Carol Ann Duffy also likes to explore language. I make no excuse for not censoring the above poem, as it would be a ridiculous irony- censoring a poem about people scared of language. For the women of this poem, language is, in a sense, there greatest problem. There desire for a 'Litany', a use of language which somehow expresses something holy and indescribable about their mundane life, is a product of their deep fear of language. In a sense, language is reality for them. It is as if saying 'cancer' instead of 'The Big C' might somehow incur cancer on the speaker. Similarly for 's-e-x'. Mentioning it might lead innocent Tupperware sessions to decay into drunken orgies. As we can see from Duffy's portrayla, language shapes the women's existence. They are deeply afraid of its power. The child with the temerity to utter the word 'Fuck', even when, as it is repeated from the boy, it is entirely devoid of any meaning, shows how some of the problems with their lives stem from an inability to cope with language. No-one can spell 'leukaemia' , so somehow their experience of it is resticted. But is it that there problems in life are reflected in their language problems, or is it language itself which is the problem? Here again, we have the Wittgenstein/Popper dichotomy.

[Check out more Carol Ann Duffy at home.clara.net/stevebrown/html/carol_ann_duffy.htm, where the poems from her collection 'Mean Time' are truly remarkable.]

************ Last one. I promise.

So how does this relate to Buffy. In Joss' opinion, we communicate better without language. In 'Hush', everybody is emotionally honest, without the tangles of language to impede them. With Wittgenstein's tangle of language cleared away, they are free to understand problems concisely. But surely this doesn't shelve everything? There are still ways to behave with each other, ultimate questions, which are still relevant despite the loss of words? Or are there. Language is a powerful tool. Without language, we would not have this discussion board. Language is still necessary for the exposition scene in 'Hush', even if written rather than verbal. Language allows Deb, Rahael, Arethusa, Briar Rose, Caroline and others to make me attempt to understand- and it can make me cry. But language also appears to restrict life. Language can be scary- and our attempts to control it can impede understanding.

There is never anything said about language which is not said in language- a paradox which hampers the whole argument. If Popper and Wittgenstein, two great minds, thought so unalike, what hope is there for us, in uncovering the great mysteries of philosophy? Maybe not a lot. But maybe, ultimately, I don't care that much. Through trying to find out, trying to understand, we form much stronger links. Links of emotion, ratehr than merely hyper-script. We make friends. We cry with grief, or lack of understanding, or smile with pleasure at an argument well-made, or at a thought or emotion shared. We are fellow strugglers in the journey of life, he said, relapsing into platitudes.

I'm British- so clearly I love Winston Churchill. Are we still 'Captains of our fate' and 'Masters of our souls'. Yes. More so for understanding ourselves by reading from others. What language unites, let not trolls put asunder.

TCH- feeling thoroughly exhausted and egotistically begging feedback.