We do use many verbs while speaking or thinking or writing. We have a
commonsense feel about their natures. However if we consciously practice
classification of verbs in terms of the kinds of acts they involve, we may get
a philosophical insight about human actions.
Observe the following groups of verbs. Does grouping them together make
sense?
1. Want, believe, feel, excite, hope, fear,
like, dislike, assume, project, attend, perceive, conceive, understand,
interpret, wish, pray, get convinced, be perplexed about, doubt, suspect,
expect, respect, honor, prefer, ignore, forget, remember, justify, tend to,
recognize, plan, hate, judge, value, appreciate, deplore, adore, look for,
fantasize, conceit, ought to, take an attitude, turn attention to, imply
2. grab, hold, release, reach for, make, join,
dig, cut, tie, lift, throw, melt, mould, weld, fit, assemble, brew, distill,
dye, bleach,
3. persuade, convince, appeal, argue,
demonstrate, show, request, demand, claim, offer, negotiate, conciliate,
promise, trust, suspect, encourage, justify, criticize, understand, sympathize,
praise, blame
4. threaten, allure, deceive, coalesce,
conspire, attack, defend,
mislead, bait, entrap, harass, coerce, compel, torture,
kill, enforce, fight, mute, suppress & so on.
This grouping is in accordance with domains
requiring different methodology in human sciences & also in social practice.
Mental acts are continuously occurring, whether
they culminate in bodily movements or not, like noticing something or turning
the arrow of attention from one focus to another. The acts which express themselves outside the
mind of the incumbent are of three types. One is interactive with other agents
& other is bringing about changes in material objects & the next is
treating humans as if they were material objects.
These kinds differ
in terms of truths they can contain & means of validating such truths.
They enjoy
advantages & suffer disadvantages in terms of containing the truths &
of validating the truths. Therefore philosophical analysis requires discernment
of acts on these lines. Verbs represent the acts & therefore a typology of
verbs becomes relevant. We shall see the groups of verbs which are typically
employed for the three kinds of acts.
Want, believe,
feel, excite……of group 1 are the verbs enjoying the ‘First-Person Privilege’
“Othello believed
that Desdemona loved Casio” is true irrespective of whether Desdemona did
love Casio or not. “Desdemona did not love Casio” is true irrespective
of whether she could build trust in Othello or not. “Iago wanted to ruin Othello” is also
true irrespective of whether Iago successfully convinced Othello about
Desdemona’s infidelity or not. But he somehow did & tragedy follows. Truths
about purely mental acts are independent of the truth of their contents.
Verifications of
the truths of purely mental acts, however, are not available to external
observer. Other’s consciousness is in a sense insulated from one’s own
consciousness. Of course we have the ability of understanding other by way of
putting one self in others’ shoes. But knowledge of others’ minds remains inferential.
Conceding this
epistemological disadvantage of purely mental acts, we must not overlook
another big advantage, the purely mental acts offer. Everybody has access to
the laboratory of his/her own mind. We all can directly see the inter-relations
of various inner acts & to our pleasant surprise; we can confirm that they
actually do have deductively ensured relations with each other.
General statements
like, ‘hope always has a ring of fear around it (that it may not come true)’,
are as convincing as eidetic (contemplative) demonstrations in say, geometry. ‘Proving
that one loves disturbs the love as it originally was.’ is another statement
which anybody can verify in her minds laboratory. ‘Any two persons having a
common and non-sharable object of preference will stand in competition with
other’ is another generalization we can safely make on the basis of meanings of
‘object of preference’ ‘non-sharable’ etc. deductively.
Husserlian
Phenomenology was a great attempt at eidetic demonstrations of essences seen
directly in one’s own mind. Even before that Spinoza had tried to prove ethical
theorems by way of deductive connections amongst emotional vectors.
At the other end
of the spectrum there are verbs which represent bodily interventions in the
external world. grab, hold, release……group 2, & all sorts of operations
that we are capable of doing upon a thing ,will come in this category. Behaviorism
entirely dwells upon observable bodily changes. Issue of verification is very
clear (though not always available) about these verbs. This is good for science
& technology. However although the act is grounded in material reality, the
meaning attached to it by the actor can hardly be neglected. ‘Motive’ is
crucial part of any charge-sheet about materially provable crimes. If physical
labor is not seen in context of intention of actors, it will obscure all issues
regarding the form of labor, content of labor & intent of labor. There is a
parable about this. Three workers were doing the same activity of cutting
stones. A bystander asks each one “What are you doing”. One answers, “Can’t you
see? Cutting stones.” Second answers, “Earning my daily bread.” Third one answers,
“Building a temple”. There are issues of alienation & conflicting interests
at workplace. Sociology of work can not afford to ignore the meaning attached
by the actor & merely describe the physical act.
Third category
namely verbs about others involve communicative actions. Such typical verbs
are, persuade, convince, appeal……group 3. The process of genuine communication may
go through initial misunderstandings. The very important verb in communicative
category is ‘to interpret’. Art of progressive interpretation is called
hermeneutics. Especially when the original interlocutor is absent or lost in
the antiquity, the responsibility of interpreter increases & so increases
the variety of possible interpretations. There is Hermeneutics of trust &
hermeneutics of doubt.
Habermass has
defined the rationality of communication as, “Each communicator must be ready
to give proofs of, intelligibility of terms, factual correctness, logical
coherence, normative consonance & authenticity of purpose”. (His Book: Theory
of Communicative Action).
When genuine
communication fails, or is not intended in the first place, we come to
manipulative & coercive side of human interaction. Here the free agent-hood
of the other is denied & humans are seen as objects to be manipulated or
used. Typical verbs will be threaten, allure, deceive…of the group 4.
The above
categories of verbs may overlap in some cases & be questionable in some
others. However, if we have a philosophical understanding about types verbs, we
are more likely to take the issue in right domain.
