In his Philosophical Investigations [1953], Ludwig Wittgenstein uses this analogy. Imagine, he says, that everyone has a small box in which they keep a beetle. However, no one is allowed to look in anyone else’s box, only in their own. Over time, people talk about what is in their boxes and the word “beetle” comes to stand for what is in everyone’s box.
How clever! Even while I don’t pretend to understand all the ins and outs of Wittgenstein’s private language argument, the analogy he used to explain it does resonate with me.
Imagine a group of people sitting around a table. Each of them has a box. In each of their boxes is something that that person calls a beetle. The catch is that no one can see what is in another’s box, so they have no way of knowing that the other person’s beetle resembles their beetle in any way. The only way they can find out anything about the other person’s beetle is by listening to what the other person says. Eventually the group will develop a collective understanding of what a beetle is through the conversation of the participants about their beetle.
Now instead of a beetle, what if what each person had inside their box is ‘god’ [or their idea of god]. You can’t see in my god box. And I can’t see in yours. I can describe to you what is in my box and I can listen as you describe to me what is in yours. I can’t tell you what your god is like, I can only echo with respect what I hear you telling me. Just as you can’t tell me what is in my box. The groups’ understanding of God then becomes an amalgamation of what is in everyone’s box.
And what should this tell us??? That we can only describe with authority what is in our box because that is what is truth for us. We need to listen when others tell us about what is in their box, because that is truth for them.The collective understanding is no one’s whole truth but rather the census of agreement between all the box holders present in the discussion.
(By using the word ‘beetle’ for what is in each box, instead of the word ‘god’ below, it is easier to get around the language and see what is actually happening.)
I can only talk about what is in MY box, not what is in yours, or in anyone else’s. Therefore my statements must start from that perspective. Listening is very important. What are you saying about what is in your box that I can also say about what is in mine? What is different? Are your ‘beetle’ and my ‘beetle’ the same, or similar or are they very different? If they are indeed different then perhaps one [or both]of us need to call what is in their box by a different name.
Imagine a church service where each person present had their box with them containing their ‘beetle’. Indeed according to Wittgenstein, you don’t have to imagine this scenario. This is actually what is going on. Some of what you hear might resonate with what is inside your box, and some doesn’t. But when nothings resonates with what is inside your box and there is no conversation happening or about to happen that is when you have two choices. You can either change what you call a 'beetle’ to match the ‘beetle’ being presented or you can go somewhere else where your ‘beetle’ fits more closely into the collective understanding.
For those Canadians today who say they are spiritual but not religious, are they are really saying that the ‘beetle’ in their box doesn’t resonate with the ‘beetle’ in the box of organized religion? Can you describe your ‘beetle’?
Comments
Post a Comment