The Philosophy of Language for High Impact Communication and How to Be Coached to Ultimate Success

Two most important traditions have empowered the study of language in their separate and very different ways; however, the two topics of the study of language are hotly debated by linguists like the sort of synthesis of philosophical grammar and structural linguistics begins to develop. The two most important traditions of study and assumption that I might use as point of reference taking into account the problems of mind, as each evolved under specific category of psychology during its time, to which contributed uniquely and distinctly.

It may look or feel a little paradoxical to talk of structural linguistics in this manner, given its belligerent anti-psychologism. However, the inconsistency is reduced as when one postulates the fact that belligerent anti-psychologism is no less veritable of much modern psychology itself, in particular of those categories that only a decade ago monopolized the study of use and acquisition of language.

It is so easy to get hooked into the analysis of how terminology is evolving, but we can’t take the importance of behavioural science for granted as it provides evidence of its work. But it has been up to this date interpreting behavior in a way that is unsatisfactorily. Behavioural scientists have focused solely on the data and how it is organized, and it would seem that behavioural science acting as the technology of control of behaviour

Linguistics and philosophers of language seem pre-occupied with this kind or orientation toward anti-mentalism. Indeed, modern structural linguistics surfaced from its victory in providing assumptions of an anti-mentalistic, using behavioural model to the Anti-mentalism in linguistics and in philosophy of language, systematically workable and behaviourist to the occurrence of language, by expanding this model to its natural limits, it furnished the foundation of an interesting conclusive revelation of the meagerness of any such model to the problem of mind.

Like Wittgenstein saw that if language was to represent reality, if sentences were to represent its state of affairs, then it had to be something in common between the sentence and the state of affairs. He saw a way to describe that on the analogy with the way pictures represent state of affairs. He thought it had to be some structural similarities, that just as a sentence was made of sequence of words that stood for things ‘names’ so the arrangement of words in a sentence mirrored the arrangement of objects in a fact. This gave him a kind of lever of metaphysical crutch, where he could then retract the structure of reality from the structure of language, because he envisaged that the structure of reality has to determine the structure of language. Unless language mirrored reality in some way, it would be impossible for sentence to mean anything.

To reiterate the point here is that we are able to speak of reality not just in a way we use words that stands for things, but because those words have a relationship to each other within the sentence that correspond to the relationship to things that have to each other in the world. That’s what Wittgenstein thought about the logical structure, and the words and sentences have that structure in common. But bear in mind, he is not talking about our common language we use every day, which he thought obscure the logical structure. He thought if we take an ordinary sentence and did some analysis of how they mean, we will get down to the elementary sentences as he calls them, and then there will be the strict picturing of the relationship between the structure of the sentences and the structure of the fact. Wittgenstein inherited this from Frege. Gottlob Frege is highly recognized today for his contributions to mathematical logic and the philosophy of language.

Wittgenstein saw the fundamental unit of meaning isn’t the word, the word only function, the name, only mean in the context of a sentence that is itself a fact that enables the sentence to picture the structure of facts in the world. I think we can easily see what we mean by picturing when we say, ‘there is a cat on the mat’ this structure is easily understandable, but suppose, we say ‘ there is no cat on the mat’ so how the hell could we picture something we say in correspondence to something that is not there?

Wittgenstein thought that words like the so called logical constant such as ‘not’ if’ ‘and’ ‘or’ are not part of the picturing structure. It is not hard to believe this, take for example, the ‘non smoking sign’ there is a line drawn through the picture of a cigarette to mean no smoking. The line that is drawn through the cigarette is the negation, but does not form part of the picturing relationship. The ‘not’ is the operating on the picture but it isn’t itself part of the picture.

The reason I am discussing this is to allow people to understand that positive statement of affirmation do have impact on our lives. The way the sentence is structured, described and pictured can affect the world in a way that mirrors the picturing of the speaker of that affirmation. Of course Wittgenstein did not have this in mind; he was more concerned about the language of ethics, religion, and the sciences. But for our daily use of
language, I think it is prudent to attempt to demarcate talk that makes sense from talk that doesn’t make sense.

I am the pioneer of N.V.L.S.E which stands for Neuro Visual and Linguistic Syntax Encoding I created carefully crafted sentences for particular solution to problems people are having when they are unconsciously engaged in self-talk or talk with others. This will help them to use their language that is coherent with the universal order so that it supports them in the fulfillment and achievement of their dream goals.

Here is an example of a picturing sentence affirmation structure

PHYSICAL GOAL: To race with superior strength, speed and agility

"I DEVOTE TIME AND EFFORT TO MAINTAINING MY PHYSICAL EDGE THROUGHOUT THE SEASON."