18
PARTISAN REVIEW
We may define, for certain purposes, a term
a
(say capitalism)
in
terms of
b; b,
for certain other purposes, in terms of
c; c,
in terms of
d
and so on. It is both possible and legitimate that in the course of ex–
plicating the meaning of
d
and its definiendum, we may find that
we are using the term
a.
The process of definition if carried far
enough is sure to be circular. In the frame of any particular inquiry,
the difference between good and bad definition is only, to borrow a
phrase from C. I. Lewis, "in the diameter of the circle."
Failure to examine the contextual situation in which words are
used, and to appreciate what the
sine qua non
requirements of an em–
pirical theory of meaning are, often
rc.~ults
in denying significance to
many pronouncements which, judging by the congruent behavior of
the people involved, seem quite meaningful to them.
For example, let us examine a passage from an eloquent orator:
"The Aryan fatherland, which has nursed the souls of heroes,
calls upon you for the supreme sacrifice which you, in whom flows
heroic blood, will not fail, and which will echo forever down the
corridors of history."
Disregarding the context and situation, here is the way in which
the passage is translated by a writer on popular semantics* who sub–
stitutes the world "blab" as a semantic blank wherever what appears
to him to be meaningless terms are being spoken.
"The blab blab, which has nursed the blab of blabs, calls upon
you for the blab blab which you, in whom flows blab blood, will
not fail, and which will echo blab down the blab of blabs."
He then adds that the hearer who is semantically sophisticated
"simply hears nothing comprehensible. The demagogue might just
as well have used Sanskrit." This is just too bad for the semantic
sophisticate! How does he recognize, then, that the speaker is a dema–
gogue? And certainly the audience did not react to the above words
as it would have to Sanskrit. (The Sanskrit, of course, could make
sense, too!) It seems to me rather obvious that the audience to whom
the above was said understood it roughly as follows:
"Speaking for the German people, whose history is a record of
the acts of courageous men, our party calls upon you, their lineal
descendants, to be prepared to die whenever war occurs; we know
you will respond to our call and promise you that future generations
of men will praise you for dying."
This is a tissue of irrelevancies, dubious statements of fact, and
calm assumptions that the orator and his party have been authorized
to speak for the people who live in Germany. It is demagogy, but not
meaningless.
.,.
The Tyranny of Words,
by Stuart Chase. Harcourt, Brace $2.50.
