Philosophy 101: How Does Words Get Meaning? Ferdinand de Saussure and Theseus’ Ship Paradox
The Paradox
Wikipedia states Theseus’ Ship paradox as follows:
"The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus’ paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the late first century. Plutarch asked whether a ship that had been restored by replacing every single wooden part remained the same ship."
The Paradox presented to us can be interpreted in many ways, from a real ship to language (for example how far can you change your pronunciation of the letter [b] and [d] in the word “bed” before it becomes [p] and [t] and then the word “pet”). The paradox asks then a simple question of identity: how much of an object x can you change before that object does not have the identity of the original x? Or for example, if you change one plank of Theseus’s ship is it still the same ship? If you change ten planks does it still have the same identity? Where do you draw the line for when the identity changes? (Hobbes brought in a new problem, if you change so much of the original and you can in a sense “rebuild” the original ship from all the reworked material, what ship is then Theseus’s ship?) The paradox is not easy to answer, and a lot of intricate arguments influences your answer and stance (for example when you view it from a certain position x you will get an answer influenced by x – there is in a sense not a “more true” answer). For the purpose of this answer, I will try and give a Sausurrean answer to the paradox and then show how words in a language get meaning.
Ferdinand de Saussure and the Sign
Saussure was a linguist that said language consists of signs. The sign further consists of a signified (the concept) and a signifier (the word). He then further proposes that the signifier and signified are both arbitrary units. That means that the signifier (word) “dog” is arbitrary (in the sense that it could have been “bloog”), and signified (concept) dog is also arbitrary (in the sense that the English language could have been different in choosing its concepts about dogs). Both the signifier and signified then is arbitrary, there is no concept before language, language for Saussure creates the concepts and words, or signified and signifiers. Further, he proposes that meaning is not of positive content (i.e. there is no inherent thing/meaning in the word “dog” that makes it mean/signify “dog”), but meaning is created via a system of differences. The word “dog” does not mean “cat” but it also does not mean “yellow” or “truck”. Saussure said that:
“[t]he ultimate law of language is, therefore, dare we say, that nothing can ever reside in a single term. This is a direct consequence of the fact that linguistic signs are unrelated to what they designate, and that therefore “a” cannot designate anything without the aid of “b” and vice versa. In other words, both have value only by the differences between them, or neither has value, in any of its constituents, except through this same network of forever negative differences.”
Saussure’s famous example is that of the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express. The train functions in an already existing network of differences. (Saussure talked about “la langue” and “parole”. “La langue” is roughly the grammar of the language, and “parole” the physical manifestations thereof. Both of these work together to form the system of differences, i.e. “parole” creates “la langue” but “parole” needs “la langue” to exist.) The 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express gets its meaning then from that it is not the 15:45 Geneva-to-Paris Express or that it is not the 8:25 Antwerp-to-Paris Express (for argument sake). The meaning is thus not of positive content, but what the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express is not. Also, functioning in the system, the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express has a place in that system, i.e. the “8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express” place. The train can, for example, be late, or the coaches can be replaced and all the staff can be replaced, it will still be the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express. The train is not the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express due to some internal content, but it is the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express because it is in a system of differences and that it differs from the other trains.
To just sum up: Saussure’s theory says that positive content does not create meaning, but rather that the meaning is created due to the system of differences wherein something functions. (For Saussure then that network is language.)
Applying Saussure to the Ship Paradox
The solution? How can we then “translate” this theory to answer Theseus’s Paradox? Let us, for example, think that Theseus’s ship is the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express train. We then replace the whole train, the staff etc., and we build another train from the original parts, we can even put the “new-original” train next to the “new-new” train. (The “new-original” train refers then to the new train built from the original train, and “new-new” train the original train that we now want to be the original even though all the parts have been replaced to build the “new-original” train.) We are now left with two trains:
the “8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express (“new-new”)” train, made from all new material, but it still functions in the same place as before it was rebuilt,
and then the “new-original” train, with not yet any function in the system of differences.
With the Saussurean theory as background then we can say that the original train, even if it is replaced with all the new parts (and we have built a second train from the parts), is still the same train, i.e. the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express train. The second train is not then the original train (even if it consists of all the pieces the original train was made of) because it does not function in the same network as the 8:25 Geneva-to-Paris Express train.
Conclusion: How Words Get Meaning
The conclusion is that even though the whole ship is reworked, every plank is changed and we can build a new ship from it, the new ship (with no original plank) is still the same ship. The new ship that is built will then not be the original ship. This is because Theseus’s original ship still functions in the same place (even though it is not of the same material). The downside of this answer is that it only works for something that functions in a network of differences, like the train system, or a language network.
The same goes for the meaning of words. Words act like the ship: we can change the physical word like the spelling and pronunciation. We can change the concept as well. All that matters is that the words are in a specific position in the system of differences. The planks can be changed, the letter can be changed, the meaning will still be determined by the position in the system of differences. I am not really convinced by this answer to how words get meaning. In philosophy, this is called internalism. Words get the meaning not because of how the world is, but because we say [x] has meaning. In the next post, I will maybe continue this. Please comment if you want to hear the argument between internalism (as given in this discussion) and externalism. If you read all of this, thank you so much.
Images Source:
Comments