Abstract

The question of language is as wide open today as it was for the author of the Cratylus. We do not finally possess a linguistic science which knows and can inform us of the truth about language, its nature, what it is, how it works, etc. But the ‘question of language’ today is not whether such a science is so much as possible; the question is whether we really want one, whether we so much as realize the cost of one, or how much of that cost has already been exacted from the societies in which we live and speak. The question of language is first and last an ethical and political question, no matter how much ‘modern linguistics’ and our ‘philosophy of language’ prefer not to see this, preferring instead to obliterate such a perception with ideas of language and meaning tailor-made to efface the often ethically and politically sensitive social and historical differences which nevertheless remain the sine qua non of language. This is by no means irrelevant to how one conceives of philosophy, or of the practice that constitutes its contemporary ‘presence.’ To look into this further requires that I first establish, at least in outline, how I see the interpenetration of history, social practice, and language. The discussion of this in Sections 1-4 frames the context in which I embed a certain statement concerning philosophy. Out of context, the statement runs: Philosophy, insofar as it is not just a history, is the discursive practice which makes the historical discourse of philosophy contemporary. But this can be done in different ways, with different styles, implying different degrees and qualities of reflectiveness about one’s own practice and the social and historical environment which embeds it. It is to these differences that we should look if we wish to understand what is problematic about English-speaking philosophy at the end of the twentieth century.