The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed that if a lion could speak English, we would not understand him. He meant that the lion's world, his point of view and mental models were so different and far from those of man, that even though common language could not be understood. The situation among human beings is not so extreme, but he claims that communication between people is also subject to a difference according to the same principle. One mind can not directly grasp the reality that exists in another. At least not through language.

This revolutionary argument concerns the theory of language and communication, but it can also be extended to other circles, including our ability to understand and recognize the people around us. Wittgenstein proposed a thought experiment that would help draw a mere language into a more general conclusion on human knowledge. The experiment is called "beetle box" and it goes as follows: Imagine a community where all members have a box. Each member can only examine the contents of his box. No one had ever seen and could not look at his friends' boxes.

What happens in the box stays in the box

The members of the community, without exception, call what they have in the box - "beetle". They talk about the beetle, discussing it from multiple angles, but have never experienced a beetle other than the one in their box. Wittgenstein's question is how people can tell if their box content is the same, in other words, how to prove that what one calls a beetle is exactly what one or more members of the community also call a beetle. Humans do not have direct access to the contents of others' boxes, yet they still talk about it. Wittgenstein's conclusion? It does not matter at all. If you have a beetle or a yellow submarine in the box, it is irrelevant. What determines the meaning of "beetle" is the widespread use among members of the community. Our ability to use language, then, depends on social interaction.

Hank Green of the popular YouTube channel Crash Course explains in a video produced for PBS that "we learn and know the meaning of words by hearing the way other members of our linguistic community use them." In other words, the meaning of a word is the accumulation of its common uses, not its meaning as it appears in the private box, that is, the brain. If we decide that a beetle is really a yellow submarine, we can not communicate because it is not a profitable use. But if we decide a beetle is a nickname for a small car, and enough people will adopt that meaning, a beetle can be both an insect and a car. What Wittgenstein says is that our language is fluid. It is impossible that any concept we have about the world will be closed in a private box.

The concept of pain, which was the focus of Wittgenstein's theory, illustrates the idea well. We have no way of knowing what pain is for another person. The only way we can understand is by observing his behavior. We will know that if a cup falls on his leg it will probably hurt, the blue sign will surely tell us something, and the spasm in his face and the cry. All these are seemingly clues to sensation, but according to Wittgenstein are the very meaning of the concept of pain. Because the personal experience of pain we simply can not grasp, so it does not play a significant role in communication between us. The contents of our personal safe are irrelevant - observation and interaction with the environment dictate the meaning of things

People are not much different from words

Consciously or not, the author and journalist Caroline Flora wrote an article in Aeon magazine in which she applied Wittgenstein's philosophy of language to our relationships with other people, or, more accurately, to the way we know, judge, and understand. On the face of it, this is a natural projection, because language is one of the pillars of relationships, but Flora's move is a bit more complicated than that. Her point of reference is our ability to understand people and she examines her through two lenses: the ability of writers to describe a figure in a way that perceives her personality with high reliability, as opposed to the experience of modern psychological theories to do the same thing. Is - as Wittgenstein says about the meaning of words - do we even have the ability to understand other people?

The way we know others, and actually ourselves, is by describing the person. When we introduce ourselves to someone new, or when we tell a friend about that one from the office, we describe a character, trying to capture something of her personality. Most of us do this superficially and use only information relevant to the story itself. On the other hand, we project the private image of our personal image. This, if examined from the perspective of Wittgenstein, lacks credibility because the meaning of private as mentioned is irrelevant. Flora explains that there are populations - writers and psychologists - who deal with a human description of their livelihood and through them, one can understand the way to understand people. "Writers look for the nucleus of personality, circumstantial details and appropriate metaphors," she writes, "while psychologists came up with a screening tool like the five great personality traits." The difference between these approaches reveals the way in which observation of others is consistent with Wittgenstein's logic.

Simply put, a variety of psychological theories try to delineate the personality and put it into boxes. Writers, on the other hand, sketch the image of man by presenting her in a variety of situations and examining her behavior under changing conditions. This is exactly the difference between the "beetle" in the box, the absolute and the limited, and the dynamic "beetle" that is built from the dialogue between the members of the community. Definition, from the language of the fence, delineates the nature of man. Whereas the examination of his behavior and his reactions in changing circumstances is a cumulative description that captures the relevant meaning of that person. Psychological theories, then, may be an attempt to explain the beetle inside my box, so they are doomed to failure. Certain purposes are facts, but not authentic descriptions.

If that is not enough, what is inside the box - the personality - is very fluid and has varying definitions. "People have speech habits, a temperament that is at least inborn and even seals of behavior and routines," explains Flora. "But over time and in diverse contexts, each of these characteristics can change." Similarly, our use of language. The word mouse was used to describe a small mammal for thousands of years until 1963 Douglas Engelbert invented a new device for voting and marking on the computer, and suddenly the meaning of "mouse" expanded. If you try to explain to your computer vendor that what you are asking for is not a mouse, but rather, an unpleasant surprise awaits you when you open the box at home. Because it is not the mouse - in this case, the mammal - that determines your head, but the convention and the context. Equally, any attempt to delve into a man in the context of a sinful sin is not only for the complex description of a figure at a given time but also for the fluid nature of the personality.

One question raised by Flora fits well with the Wittgenstein experiment in the box:
"If a person has multiple faces and may even be infinite, how can I compare two infinitesimals? That is a legitimate question for theoretical mathematicians, but in the personal sciences, perception is more accurate than most of the time."
That's exactly what Wittgenstein says when he claims we can not compare the contents of our boxes. And so, as we learn the meaning of a word in the process of talking to the members of the community, we learn to recognize a person by observing his behavior over time and in changing circumstances.
This allows us flexibility in expanding or changing meaning - both in word and in man.

Snap-shot of personality teaches us very little

The way a person behaves in a variety of different situations tells him more than any impression we received about him and pushed him into the box. Let's say - adventurer. Man, like the word is the sum of all its meanings. This can have one meaning that changes from time to time and these can have multiple meanings. What matters is how the phenomenon is expressed within a broad context over a long period of time. The person we classed as an adventurer because we saw him jump into the sea from a cliff six feet high could turn out to be a big coward. The only reason he jumped was the presence of several women around. The next day, when it was necessary to cross a stream, he did not dare take the first step. Unlike psychological theories that are quantified by numbers, "writers know that behavior always reveals more than a grocery list of attributes." Mythological figures from stories take on such a measure of vitality that they become almost real. Bring to mind a book that deeply influenced you and you will find that the main characters appear in your mind with the sharpness of a real person you have known over a period of time. The greatest of writers is to capture the complexity of personality and they do so by displaying the smallest nuances in the personality of the character, up to the level of laughter lines.

What further strengthens Wittgenstein's argument about the inability to understand the private reality of others is our ongoing attempt to understand what is happening in the social reality. We are constantly trying to figure out what is the common language - in a broad sense - in our group. Flora explains that this is precisely the role of gossip. "The analysis of ourselves and others is often an entertainment for the transfer of time," she writes, "but gossip has developed as a complex survival mechanism ... Her deep goal is not to engrave others in stone, but to decipher the changing norms and dynamics of power in our main group." Since we do not have direct access to information that exists within another, "we all run case studies on each other, including friends and acquaintances, or influencers and celebrities".

The abundance of this complex information very few psychological theories can achieve if any. A person, though partially limited to his genetics, has infinite potential for behavior and change, depending on the events in which he or she is in life. Just as a word is an infinite potential for meanings, depending on the social consensus of its role and the ideas it must represent. Flora believes that today the theory that comes closest to what writers can do with a description of a character, and of course we are in our real experience of life, belongs to Professor Brian Little of Cambridge, who offers a personality model consisting of the genetic, environmental and unique characteristics of man. In his view, the way to understand a man is to examine the extremes in which we exceed ourselves. Our ability to act against our nature to achieve our main goals at any given time in life. For example, the courage to jump off a cliff while overcoming the fear in order to impress a prospective spouse or partner. This is how man's complexity and liquidity are exposed - by examination in different situations.

So if we really want to understand or recognize someone, it may be more accurate to examine the aspirations and goals that are burning in his bones. To examine how he works to achieve them in changing situations and in relation to his personal inclinations. This image provides a much higher resolution than any psychological definition, no matter how statistically significant it is.

And yet, even if you accompany a person for a lifetime, we can never go directly to the thing itself. So when we look at another person, the voice of reason calls on us to remain humble - not to mistake ourselves for knowing the beetle in its box. If we want to act in the way of logic when we assess others, it requires us to let them enjoy the doubt and leave the room to maneuver and anticipate the changes that are constantly occurring in them.


Images via Pixabay.com

Feel free to leave a comment below!
Up Vote - Resteem - Follow Me @nirgf