Reading up on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations, Rich Kemp recently became extremely interested in the philosophy of language. Filled with such truth-seeking intrigue, he decided do a little musing himself... 

Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein’s works go into great detail about language and how we as humans try to derive meaning from it. One main point he gets to in Investigations… is that language can never truly give meaning to something since – whichever language in which we choose to use to express something – it will always be dependent upon the society in which it exists. Even if the thought is brand new and innovative, the language in which it is expressed is nothing more than a set of pre-agreed guidelines that everyone abides by. So we cannot truly express ourselves with words that haven’t already been used to express something else by someone else. This means that, outside of the ties created by the society that we are a part of, we have no true form of expression and so cannot even think freely for ourselves, since the language a thought is expressed in has been pre-determined by that person’s society. From here, one could argue that no words mean anything and even the meaning of the word “meaning” would be near-impossible to achieve, since this word too is dependent upon its surrounding society.


Although seemingly quite a shocking idea at first glance, Wittgenstein’s ruminations are not all that revolutionary.  They relate back to the thoughts of Cratylus, a disciple of Plato, who eventually refused to speak and instead limited his communication to moving his finger, since he considered the meanings of his words to be unstable.


Let’s assume, for one moment, that what Wittgenstein said is correct. Will we therefore ever be able to express ourselves freely? If we are to follow Wittgenstein´s musings, then we will find it near-impossible to ever have a true, personal and unique thought. Would a race of people from a different planet have different ways to express themselves and therefore have more profound thoughts than us? If so, one would have to assume that they too would have a limit to their expression and so be confined to the society in which they live. Also, maybe we would have some forms of expressions that they don’t and vice-versa. Can different races of people learn different forms of expression from other people and therefore have more profound thoughts? If so, does a person with more than one form of expression available to them have deeper thoughts than someone who has only one form at their disposal?

Waxing Lyrical



Looking at all this with a musical slant, we can take a lyric from a famous songwriter like Bob Dylan and read fantastic lines from tracks like Absolutely Sweet Marie:

 

“to live outside the law you must be honest”

Or alternatively, we could borrow The Beatles’ I Am The Walrus:

 

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”

Both of these tracks have lyrics on which many would argue their greatness until the cows came home. However, one thing is for sure: these are not the only profound lyrics to have come out of the mouths of either of these artists. The Beatles have a back-catalogue positively bursting with barnstormers while Dylan, albeit a little shaky at times, also holds his own with gems that will stay in the public’s heart for years to come/


Lest us forget that the songs themselves, not just the lyrics, are also brilliant. Quite often, we tend to listen to the radio and not catch a word of what an artist is saying and yet still feel something. In that case, it stands to reason that, if we were then to look up the words to a song, we would feel more affinity towards it due to its lyrical power. This of course, assumes that the radio hasn’t just played something by Mika.


Yet, if we look at how Wittgenstein’s philosophy plays out, then whatever expression those artists make in whatever language they choose can only be worth so much. However profound their words are, they only appear to be profound because our society has deemed them so. Since we have all learnt the same language and understand the words – hence being able to only have equal thoughts and feelings rather than more or less profound ones – do the lyrics indeed mean anything at all?

Can meaning then really be derived from a musician’s lyrics? If we are to follow Wittgenstein’s thought process, it would seem “no”. Even if an artist’s lyrics are printed on paper and affect us in some way, one may argue that the only reason we are affected is because, from those words, we remember the song or a person’s plight or anything else related to the track. Thus, it is natural to look for meaning in other forms of expression. Does meaning exist more prominently in dance? Maybe Michael Jackson’s Thriller would have meant nothing if it weren’t for the fabulous dance moves that accompanied it.  It’s a given that his dance moves wowed and inspired people throughout the world and so, does this give him more meaning than someone who would have simply sung the songs?

Beyond Words

This same musing can relate to protest songs. In 1969, Jimi Hendrix and his experience played Woodstock festival. Before leading into Purple Haze, he arguably played one of the most moving renditions of Star Spangled Banner ever recorded. During the performance, and using only his guitar, he was able to simulate bombs dropping and explosions going off as a response to the Vietnam War. Perhaps the single greatest protest against Vietnam and yet there is not a single word neither sung nor spoken. Hendrix says nothing. He simply allows his guitar to do the talking.


Did Hendrix therefore agree with Cratylus and Wittgenstein? Did he too feel that expressing himself with words would never give enough meaning to how he truly felt? What’s for certain is that his performance in 1969 went down in history and will be remembered by music lovers and activists alike for a long time, if not forever.


All this subtle reflection, though, seems to be unearthing something: even if it can be proved that meaning cannot be extracted from the spoken word, it is true that we can be overwhelmed by a piece of music. Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner is one example, while Pavarotti’s Nessun Dorma is another. In fact, this Pavarotti track is so powerful that it can move any grown man to tears – and that’s without understanding a word. If you then look up the lyrics to the song and listen again, you will probably find that you double over once more. It’s such a powerful song that to understand it while you listen is simply a spine-tingling experience.


However, if we relate back to Wittgenstein, understanding the lyrics suddenly renders the song meaningless. This idea may explain why certain pieces that we wouldn’t normally admit to listening to can move us too. Maybe you’ve felt solemn once when a KISS or Billy Idol track came on the radio, but just couldn’t put your finger on why. It may be because you feel a touch of nostalgia or it reminds you of a relative or you could even like the song. Either way, following Wittgenstein, we are more likely to feel something real by not knowing what the artist is saying. We must, therefore, continually remind ourselves that the voice on a song is not just that of a story-teller, but is also an instrument itself. From this, we can further understand why we get affected by music without actually understanding it.

A light therefore begins to shine: music, with lyrics or without, is one of the most powerful forms of expression we humans have. Naturally, we all knew this from the start, but then that’s sometimes what philosophy has to do: pick something obvious and then explain it sufficiently so that we can continue to believe it.

So, the next time that travellers come down from outer space, and wish to converse with us, we can feel safe in the knowledge that we are not simply limited to our structurally-unstable spoken word and instead can express ourselves more freely by whacking Explosions In The Sky’s The Birth And Death Of The Day on the decks and turning it up to eleven.

Posted In Features, Dec 25 2009. Words - Rich