Verbs as Domain Indicators

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.