General Semantics and Contemporary Thomism (Bison Book S)

"Oh thank goodness" you're saying... "Finally a book that addresses THE issue of our time. Everyone has been so timid, but now, we finally have a book to answer the great, powerful, well known, and extremely influential field of... general semantics. Yes, when I think of all the errors that need addressing today, the first thing that comes to mind is not modernism, utilitarianism, feminism, indifferentism, or scientism... no, the great error of our time that everyone is pushing and no one is addressing is indeed general sematics."Yes, I realize that an answer to general semantics seems like some kind of esoteric academic exercise. What is general semantics? Why should one waste their time reading and learning how to answer some weirdo philosophical system that no one has heard of and that hasn't influenced anyone? The philosophical errors listed above are the ones we should be learning how to answer it would seem.Here is my response: General semantics as a system underlines probably how the majority of people in deep error think today. I don't know if historically those who began the field of general semantics (Korzybski, Hayakawa, etc.) are the ones who have influenced these people or if it a coincidence that general semantics systematizes most of the errors that people today generally hold. But I do know this- whether people know it or not, most people in error hold to some form of what we may call general semantics. Below I will outline the basic ideas of general semantics and the approach the book takes.So what is general semantics? One of the main ideas here is that our language habits influence our worldview. It is primarily a non or anti-Aristotelian system. The meanings of words lie exclusively in the effects that they have on human behavior as opposed to anything transcendental. General semantics is both a form of scientism and nominalism, and it has no need of the concept of substance (p. 20). Definitions are operational as opposed to essential, and all truth is relative to the knowledge of the contemporary age as well as the past experiences of the speaker and listener (pp. 30-31). In other words, definitions are pragmatic and have no basis in reality outside ourselves. It goes without saying that general semantics then has no place for substance, essence, and form, and more generally any metaphysical considerations. Science is viewed as the highest order of abstraction (as opposed to the lowest, simple apprehension, according to the Thomistic three acts of the mind). Meaning is thus identified with reactions in people's nervous systems. In addition, the law of non-contradiction and the principle identity is denied, as "no one thing is ever the same thing as itself" (p. 52) (This is simply a form Hegel's and the other modernist's notion of becoming.) Much, much more can be said about the views general semantics espouses as well as its implications, but suffice it to say that this is not some esoteric philosophy that is kept in the ivory tower- this is the philosophy of your everyday man on the street, and it needs to be addressed carefully and thoughtfully from a Thomistic point of view. Mother Gorman does just that.Chapter 1 supplies a brief but seemingly thorough background cataloging the main influences of general semantics. It discusses different academic disciplines that study language and where general semantics fits into these disciplines as well as its influences. Admittedly, many names I had never heard of, but the thought of some such as Kant as well as Russell and Whitehead are mentioned. After this history of the influences on general semantics, we are treated to a history of general semantics itself (up until the publication of the book, 1962). The father of general semantics is Alfred Korzybski, and several of his students and those he influenced are mentioned here, including the man who wrote the introduction to the book Samuel Hayakawa (it should be noted here that Hayakawa, though himself a committed general semanticist, has only praise for Mother Gormen in his introduction. He praises her for having done her homework by stating the views of general semantics correctly and carefully, as well as having examined the literature thoroughly, familiarizing herself with all the main players. He even praises her for commending the parts of general semantics that are consistent with Thomism, while calmly and rationally pointing out the places where it diverges from Thomism and why Thomism is superior.)Chapter 2 discusses the implications of general semantics and lays out its teaching in detail. Several important highlights of this chapter were mentioned above when discussing what is meant by general semantics. Mathematics is upheld by the general semanticists as the "ideal language." In conjunction with the denial of the law of identity, general semantics suggests, taking a cue from mathematics, to not talk about "Smith" in 1940 and "Smith" in 1957, but "Smith_1940" and "Smith_1957" where the underscore indicates that 1940 is a subscript to Smith (p. 56). This emphasizes the fact that Smith is not the same being he was in 1940 as he currently is in 1957. Of course, only a philosopher could deny identity over time, and the concept of form explains identity over time. As mentioned above, general semantics is also non-Aristotelian. It accuses Aristotelianism of cluttering up language with much meaningless jargon. "Failure to keep in mind that meaning means the link between words and experience has been at the root of the sterility of most traditional philosophies." (p. 61) We also learn that operational definitions imply that one's reality is completely determined by them. This is no exaggeration, as we read an extended quote from general semanticist Rapoport on people who believe in hell. He says that hell for them is real because their belief in hell affects their behavior. Thus "one will find that the way to avoid 'going to hell' is simply not to react to the word as if it stood for anything other than fiction. The person most important for 'salvation' then becomes the semanticist instead of the priest." (p. 67) I'll give you a moment to pull your jaw off the floor and connect it back onto your face. Rapoport goes on to be quoted in this chapter as saying "Absolute truth is meaningless because no definition of it can be agreed upon." I disagree. Yet such blatantly self-refuting statement is held by many a college student; that is, that in order for proposition X to be true, X must be agreed upon by all. Once again, we see how far reaching the philosophy of general semantics is. God is redefined by Korzybski as "whatever we want most in life." This is absolutely the case for many people. On page 72, we see a list of 8 goals for general semantics concerning this new definition of God, things like "God would become the chief force in man's life" "God would be humanity's system of values or goals." All of them have come to pass in my opinion. Again, it is simply astonishing how this one system that I had never heard of before reading this book encompasses the way most people think today. The chapter concludes with a summary list of the main points of general semantics.Chapter 3 is finally devoted to answering general semantics in "light of Thomistic principles." Four problems posed by general semantics are listed: the problems of change, how man knows, communication, and the conformity of thoughts and words to things. Exactly what is meant by each of these problems is clearly spelled out. Mother Gorman then spends the rest of the chapter answering these problems using Thomistic metaphysics and thought, showing the coherence of Thomism in light of common sense and the limitations and errors of general semantics. I will not go through some of the details of the chapter, but suffice it to say that it is very readable, clear, easy to understand, and compelling. Mother Gorman shows how universals, substance, form, act/potency, etc. answer the problems in general semantics. One can learn about Thomistic metaphysics qua Thomistic metaphysics, but it is quite another thing to see these ideas played out to answer an actual worldview that has the grasp on so many people. Reading this chapter is a great exercise in what might be called "applied Thomism."The book concludes with chapter 4 discussing the educational implications of general semantics. One of Korzybski's main motivations for the construction of general semantics seems to have been educational. He was not just interested in higher education, but education all the way down to children. Much of the literature on general semantics apparently deals with this issue, and many textbooks have been written to educate children starting with the general semantics worldview. Mother Gorman is quick to point out those aspects of general semantics education that she agrees with. Of course, we have already seen many of the places that general semantics is problematic, but there are of course redeeming aspects as well, some of which we see in this chapter. It does however, appear that even as far back as 1962 many schools and universities had adopted general semantics texts. Whether or not schools still use them in my opinion is a moot point, as general semantics has indeed made its way into the worldview of most people.I have spent much of the review discussing some of the ideas and worldview of general semantics in order to convince you that this is a philosophy that is in need of being answered. Though we may not know it my the term today, general semantics permeates the thought of many people, and we need to be ready to answer it with solid Thomism. Mother Gorman's book does just that. Her responses are strictly Thomistic through and through, she makes the proper distinctions so common amongst scholastics, and uses the standard Thomistic concepts of act/potency, form/matter, etc. in order to answer general semantics. This is a book that is needed to be read by all. I highly recommend it.