Day 63: Wednesday
Good morning Zak,
Remember the movie The Devil Wears Prada? That designer brand, Prada—they’re based here in Milano. You would think there would be swarms of little devils marching all over this town to get their shopping done.
It’s interesting. I’ve never really thought about this: what sort of outfits does this Prada-wearing devil really like to wear? I’ve seen some pretty crazy stuff during settimana della modo, the annual city-wide fashion week. Does he like jean jackets with one arm torn off? Maybe something frilly with all kinds of colorful feathers?
To a fashion-industry outsider, it’s hard to know what to make of these things. They are “fashion-statements,” but what exactly is being stated?
Usually when we “state” something, we use language to do it. Regular old language, like English or Italian or what have you. So there’s obviously something metaphorical about the concept of a “fashion-statement.” It forms a comparison between fashion and language.
Actually a lot of art forms make analogies to language. In music, there’s the concept of phrase—a coherent musical thought with a beginning and ending. Italian musicians take it a step further; the word frase also means “sentence.” Even painters think of their work as language. We’re all poet wannabes. Meanwhile poets themselves talk about poetic images and the musical lyricism of verses.
If all the arts are like language on some level, then they all have similar purposes and similar obstacles to accomplishing those purposes. So what is the purpose of language?
Well, writers might have some pretty good insight when it comes to a question like that. Kurt Brindley recently asked a bunch of them why they write. The answers were pretty interesting. You should definitely go check it out.
But purpose is a funny thing. A lot of philosophers these days are skeptical that there really is such a thing as purpose. Like, back in the day, Aristotle used to explain natural phenomena teleologically, in terms of their purpose. But today, some people say there really is no purpose behind nature. A rock falls to the Earth because that’s the way physics works, not because the rock intends or longs to return to its proper place.
But language isn’t a part of natural science. I think it’s less controversial to argue that a human phenomenon like language has a purpose. Humans made shoes, and shoes were made for walking. They’ve even written a song about it…
So here’s my answer to the question: human contact is the end purpose of language.
Here’s what I mean. The end purpose of a pen is writing. If you use a pen to write something that makes your friend cry, that doesn’t mean that crying is the function of the pen. The pen still functions as a tool of writing. Crying is only an ulterior effect.
The same is true of language. Zak, if you write an email to a coworker that results in some restructuring of your company, that doesn’t mean business is the purpose of language. Language itself still functions merely to bring you in contact with that coworker. The rest is only incidental to that function.
Some people say that language played a role in evolution. A species that can use language to cooperate is more fit to survive. But the survival value of linguistic clarity is only an accidental byproduct of its main function.
Anyway, sorry for just vomiting random thoughts all over the place today. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that human contact is the end purpose of art. We can evaluate art—even weird art like flamingo jackets—in terms of its potential to fulfill that function.