Deceptive language and reality TV

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the concepts put forth in the reading, so bear with me if this post is a bit all over the place. A thread that is obviously present is that of communication and how people discover meaning through words that are spoken and written down. As humans, we depend on symbols to make meaning. Or, as Burke would say, a human is a “symbol using animal” (50). These symbols are formed through experiences and ideas found in nature, yet a few questions that seem to come up even for the thinkers are these: How much control do humans have over these so-called symbols? Is there truth in these symbols?

I don’t think I can fully answer those questions in this post (or ever for that matter), but I will attempt to flesh out some of these ideas. We will begin with Kant, who describes to us a priori-knowledge without experience. This kind of knowledge results when a person already knows about an object before experiencing the object. However, Kant notes an argument against such knowledge by indicating that “understanding has its rule” in the form of concepts with which the object conforms (22). It seems that Kant is trying to provide a structure for understanding that can be grappled with outside of human experience. His takeaway from the excerpt provides an interesting summation in that “all we cognize a priori about things is what we ourselves put into them” (23). The knowledge formed before experiencing the object comes with what the human adds to the experience.

In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, these ideas are unpacked even more, so I’ll touch on a few. As mentioned before, concepts directly relate to objects. A concept can be formed a priori, but its significance relies on experience (306). We rely on sensibility to “make comprehensible to ourselves just what sort of thing is in fact meant by such a concept” (307). This idea brings us to phenomena-knowledge with the senses-and noumena-knowledge without the senses. Kant emphasizes that we are not satisfied with sensibility alone because this idea “deals not with things in themselves” but the appearances of things (314). Understanding is not found with appearance alone. Is there a balance? Kant offers this thought: “In us, understanding and sensibility can determine objects only in combination” (italics by Kant 321). We must use both when discovering the meaning and truth in objects.

With regard to language, Nietzche further breaks down the idea of truth. I love that he asks: “What is a word?” A discussion of language and how we make use of language results from that question. Words become concepts when we attribute a certain word to a number of situations. These concepts then become “rhetorically intensified” and deemed “truth.” However, Nietzche points out the following: “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions” (4). Humans determine what is true from experience and the ability to form concepts (unlike other animals who cannot). A man can only know he is awake by the “web of concepts” around him (7). We use language to form these concepts and inherently allow ourselves to be deceived (a deception that results from pride that Nietzche mentions early in the text). We use language to determine reality, yet we must grapple with the idea that language also is used for deception. Burke mentions a similar idea by Pascal in the way we “direct the intention” of a situation (45). Can we ever know what is actually real?     

 As mentioned earlier, Burke notes the way humans use symbols. We make choices about whether or not to act according to those symbols, and thus differentiate between scientistic and dramatistic language. I think what it comes down to is this idea written by T.S. Eliot: ‘Without words, no objects’ (61). All of this, including the “written signs” mentioned by Derrida culminates from the experience of the writer (or more generally, the communicator).

The following object lesson may stretch a bit, but I will try to make a connection. After reading, I kept thinking about reality television and more specifically, the TLC show Breaking Amish. The producers put together four Amish young adults and one Mennonite girl and followed their journey to New York City, or the “English” world. What viewers see and hear on the show is supposedly a glimpse of reality. We allow ourselves to be deceived by edited conversations and scenes taken out of context. The main characters of the show already had ideas of what life was like in the big city, even though they are not supposed to have anything to do with life outside of the Amish/Mennonite community (a more strict sense for the Amish). They, and the viewers, rely on concepts formed by language to determine what “real life” is like. For the participants, they try to understand how to live a life that goes against their standards and beliefs. The viewers try to relate to and understand what the kids are going through during each episode. Also, the characters are questioning the truths that they have been taught. The drama of the show is formed by the experiences of the characters. In the same vein, viewers drink in the drama, if only for a little while, and see the events as reality. We experience this “phenomena” because of language (and technology). Thus, reality TV creates a semblance of truth that we “believe," even though they show is anything but reality.