In J.L. Austin’s Other Minds, Austin states that when one questions the speaker to verify the truthfulness of their statements, one asks the speaker to expand on their credentials and facts. Some also question the reality perceived by the speaker and the certitude of the speaker in his perceptions. Yet Austin insists that certain metaphysical questions that interrogates into the reality — whether the speaker is in the proper state of mind, whether the object is in its natural state, whether the speaker’s perceptions have been distorted by external influences — lose their meanings when raised in ambiguous contexts, and language can be used as an instrument to clarify the confusion between different notions and resolve the doubt on the veracity
…show more content…
To confirm the the speaker’s “reliability,” one often raises the question: “how do you know” (Austin 86). The questioner, in doubting the truthfulness of the statement, asks the speaker to elaborate upon his “credentials” and to “detail [his facts]” (Austin 86). In addition, one also raises questions concerning the “reality” and “certitude” of the speaker’s statements (Austin 86). The questions that relate to whether the reality exists may be formulated as “do you know it’s a real goldfinch? How do you know you’re not dreaming? Or after all, mightn’t it be a stuffed one?” (Austin 86). Other questions that inquire into the certitude of the speaker include “but are you certain it’s the right red for the goldfinch? Are you quite sure it isn’t too orange?” (Austin 86). Then, Austin demonstrates two approaches through which the questioner use to inquire into the nature of reality — either by doubting the perception of the speaker, “[his] credentials,” or questioning the nature of the object, “[his] facts” (Austin 86). The questioner doubts if something is wrong with the state of mind of the speaker (maybe the speaker is “in …show more content…
His approach is ingenious, in that we would not have different words in english if they describe exactly the same meaning or refer to the same state of mind. The word, waking would not be needed if waking and dreaming describe the same state of mind. Even when describing the emotions within the same state of mind, each word is still different from another: sad and melancholy are synonyms that describe one’s feeling of unhappiness, yet they differ in that sadness seems to involve sorrow and regret over unfortunate experiences, while reflection over the unfortunate or sorrowful experience is included to characterize the state of melancholia. Thus, in clarifying the definitions of different words, one can resolve doubts on the nature of the object, the state of mind of the person during perception. For instance, by pointing out the definition of stuffed, one can resolve the doubts upon the phoniness of the goldfinch; by distinguishing the difference between awake and asleep, one can find a solution for the ambiguities that underlie the state of mind of the person; by specifying conditions during which external factors might influence the perception of the object, one can rule out the possibilities that the object is affected
To confirm the the speaker’s “reliability,” one often raises the question: “how do you know” (Austin 86). The questioner, in doubting the truthfulness of the statement, asks the speaker to elaborate upon his “credentials” and to “detail [his facts]” (Austin 86). In addition, one also raises questions concerning the “reality” and “certitude” of the speaker’s statements (Austin 86). The questions that relate to whether the reality exists may be formulated as “do you know it’s a real goldfinch? How do you know you’re not dreaming? Or after all, mightn’t it be a stuffed one?” (Austin 86). Other questions that inquire into the certitude of the speaker include “but are you certain it’s the right red for the goldfinch? Are you quite sure it isn’t too orange?” (Austin 86). Then, Austin demonstrates two approaches through which the questioner use to inquire into the nature of reality — either by doubting the perception of the speaker, “[his] credentials,” or questioning the nature of the object, “[his] facts” (Austin 86). The questioner doubts if something is wrong with the state of mind of the speaker (maybe the speaker is “in …show more content…
His approach is ingenious, in that we would not have different words in english if they describe exactly the same meaning or refer to the same state of mind. The word, waking would not be needed if waking and dreaming describe the same state of mind. Even when describing the emotions within the same state of mind, each word is still different from another: sad and melancholy are synonyms that describe one’s feeling of unhappiness, yet they differ in that sadness seems to involve sorrow and regret over unfortunate experiences, while reflection over the unfortunate or sorrowful experience is included to characterize the state of melancholia. Thus, in clarifying the definitions of different words, one can resolve doubts on the nature of the object, the state of mind of the person during perception. For instance, by pointing out the definition of stuffed, one can resolve the doubts upon the phoniness of the goldfinch; by distinguishing the difference between awake and asleep, one can find a solution for the ambiguities that underlie the state of mind of the person; by specifying conditions during which external factors might influence the perception of the object, one can rule out the possibilities that the object is affected