There is Ludwig Wittgenstein: language is not only used to describe reality, we also use it to ask for favors, to give thanks, to curse, to greet, to pray…
And it is necessary to take into account the context, the situation, the use. “It’s raining” can state the fact that it’s really raining. But suppose that the mother in the morning, when the son is getting ready for school, says to him: “It is raining”, he at the same time knows that he must take an umbrella. If in a peasant family, after a long drought, as now, the wife opens the window and says to her husband: “It is raining,” then this speaks of contentment. But if you were expecting a pleasant walk and you say, “It’s raining,” you’re in for a disappointment. Language performs three main functions: expressive, appellative and representative. These functions are related to the relationship established between sender, receiver and objects: there is someone (the sender) who addresses someone (the receiver) to tell him something, making reality real.
There is also a phatic function, the task of which is only to maintain communication: “yes, yes …”, “yes …”, “of course …”. When someone talks too much, they try to say that they are still listening. God knows!…
In another sense, the pragmatic dimension of language is essential. According to some philosophers, one should strive for an artificial, logically unambiguous language, interested only in syntactic (relationships between signs) and semantic (relationships between signs and reality) dimensions of language and the verification principle of statements. But thus the pragmatic dimension was forgotten: by speaking, an effect is produced. Think, for example, of the promise of marriage: “I promise and swear to love you and be faithful to you all our lives” has an effect that is marriage itself. This dimension was emphasized in the Bible: God was created by the word, the efficacious word. “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Language can attract crowds, lead them to revolution, calm them down, elevate them, turn them in one direction or another.
The word heals. One day a man came to me with huge problems and simply asked me to listen to him without interrupting. He talked for more than an hour and a half and, at the end, thanked me very much, because he could not imagine how much I helped him, which he will never forget. With a few words, we can discover the future of man. With a few words, we can destroy it forever: “You are an ass, you will never do anything in life!”
Through the word we open ourselves to the world, and the world opens up to us. Speaking, we argue this or that, argue, commit, form a community. Because the human mind is linguistized, we can only understand ourselves in the body, with others, and in history. man because he Zoon Hangong Echonan animal that has a tongue on politicssocial, political animal, in contrast to the herd animal, and the reason for this is the word, as Aristotle saw in Politics: “The reason why man is more of a social being than any bee or any other herd animal is clear. Only man among animals has a word. And he continues: “The voice is an indication of suffering and pleasure; therefore, other animals also have it. On the contrary, the word exists to express what is convenient and what is inconvenient, as well as what is right and what is unjust. , And this is a characteristic of people compared to other animals: to have an exceptional sense of good and evil, justice and injustice and other assessments. Public participation in this establishes a family home and a city. “And this is through dialogue (dia input) that conflicts must be resolved.
Human language cannot be reduced to the emotional language of pleasure and displeasure. He is able to make moral judgments, distinguish between good and evil, fair and unfair, sharing and publicly challenging these assessments. Thus, as Gabriel Amengual summarized, “through this dual function, language founds ethics and ethically founds the polis.”
How we need to return to the classics! To put an end to lies and go beyond sophistry…
We are all political animals and, therefore, we are responsible for maintaining the policy. I agree with Pope Francis in his remark that although it applies only to Christians, the warning is for everyone: “Participation in politics is a Christian’s duty. As Christians, we cannot wash our hands like Pilate did. We must intervene in politics, because politics is one of the highest forms of charity, since it seeks the common good. The laity must work in politics. Politics is very dirty, but I ask: “Why is it dirty?” Why didn’t Christians get me in the gospel spirit? This is the question I ask myself. It’s easy to say that the blame lies with others… But what should I do? This is a debt! To work for the common good is the duty of a Christian.”
I have written here many times that I consider politics a noble occupation, one of the noblest. When this happens as part of the work for the common good, putting the common interest above their own and party interests. But, since politics is such a difficult and demanding mission, when I watch so many people rush for political office, I must sincerely confess that I do not believe that the majority do it out of love for the public cause. , in the service of the common good. What interests, what benefits, what complicity, what incompetence, what privileges, what cronies, what rewards, what benefits, what vanity drives them?
