Page:Schlick - Gesammelte Aufsätze (1926 - 1936), 1938.djvu/206

 11. Is there no escape from language?

Thus far we have been discussing the nature of expression chiefly in regard to our ordinary language of words, at least we have taken from it most of our illustrations. Nevertheless our arguments have been of such a general nature that they hold for any kind of language, they include every possible sort of expression. I think this will be admitted readily, and there would be no reason for dwelling on it if we did not have to take precautions against certain misunderstandings which might arise from a failure to grasp the true function of expression.

One might be tempted to say: What, after all, is the final aim of language and expression ? Is it not to make the listener or reader acquainted with the fact which is to be communicated to him? And is not language only an indirect and roundabout way of doing this? Could it not be achieved in a more direct way by avoiding language and bringing the listener or beholder into immediate contact with the fact?

Thus one might think (and we shall see in our second lecture that most philosophers have thought it) that expression was just a means to an end which could also be attained in some other way. If, for instance, instead of describing our green leaf and talking so much about it, we produce the leaf itself: does not this act fulfill the same purpose as any expression, only much more perfectly? Does it not provide content itself (e.g. the green of the leaf) which, as we had to admit, cannot be grasped by any expression? In this way the only effect of all our arguments against the incommunicability of content might be the desire to avoid language and replace it by real acts of presentation which would have the advantage of making us acquainted with content as well as form.

You will notice that the act of making a person directly perceive a certain object or witness a certain fact is nothing but what we called "transportation" a little while ago. And we have treated it as not essentially different from the case of a verbal description. It is important to see that we were right in doing this. There can be no doubt that for many purposes this procedure of presenting the object itself is by far the best method of communication, but we must insist that from our point of view it is also a sort of language, or part of a language. It either has all the properties of expression (its advantages and defects), or it is no communication at all.