Wilson(1963), 개념 분석의 기술

1. 극복해야 할 심리적 장애물

 

a. 길잃은 느낌(feeling of being hopelessly lost)

 

- 개념 분석은 neat and tidy way가 없으며 separate headings 아래 정리되지 않고, 그래서 분석 이후 어떤 결론에도 이르지 못했다는 느낌이 들 수 있음

 

b. 쉽다는 느낌(feeling of questions of concept can be settled much more easily than in fact is the case)

 

- 분석의 대상이 되는 흥미로운 개념들의 풍부한 의미와 용례에 비추어볼 때, ‘the whole thing is a fuss about nothing: obviously such-and-such a concept just mens so-and-so: there’s no need to go on splitting hairs’ 같은 느낌은 바람직하지 않음

 

c. 모든 것을 분석하고자 하는 충동(curious compulsion to analyse everything)

 

- 실용적 목적에 비추어 분석의 대상이 될 만한 개념(ex. science, freedom, democracy)이 있고 그냥 가만히 두어도 되는 개념(ex. table, horse)이 있는데, 전자에 집중하는 것이 바람직함

 

d. 토론을 피하는 태도(unwillingness to talk or debate)

 

- 어떤 것이든 배우기 위해서는 바보짓을 기꺼이 하고자 해야 하기에, 쾌히 자유롭게 생각과 주장을 제시하고자 하는 유창함(fluency)이 바람직함

 

e. 피상적 유창함(superficial fluency)

 

- 사고의 전개를 돕기보다는 오히려 방해하는 장황한 의견 개진은 바람직하지 않음. 그런 것은 개념 분석보다는 오히려 정치 연설이나 광고에 적합함.

 

f. 도덕화 욕망(desire to moralise)

 

- 어떤 개념에 대한 성급한 가치 판단 후 그것을 무기로 사용하기 전에(ex. 민주주의는 좋고, 공산주의는 나쁘다 → ‘너 공산주의자니?(악마니?)’), 그 개념이 정확히 무엇인지 분석해보아야 할 것.

 

정리(a.~f.). 의사소통의 실패(failures in communication)

 

“Behind the notion of ‘how to analyse concepts’, therefore, there lies the still more general skill, ‘how to talk’ or ‘how to communicate’”

 

 

2. 개념 분석의 기술

 

(1) 개념적 질문을 떼어내기(isolating questions of concept)

 

- 대체로 개념적 질문(questions of concept)은 순수한 형태로 제시되기보다는 복합 질문(complex question)에 사실적 질문(questions of fact)이나 가치 질문(questions of value)과 함께 혼합되어(mixed) 있음. 개념적 질문을 다른 질문들을 구별하여 떼어낸 후 그것부터 먼저 다룰 수 있어야 다른 질문들도 제대로 다룰 수 있을 것.

 

ex. ‘Should people in mental asylums ever be punished?’

 

(i) to analyse the concept of punishment

(ii) to have some factual knowledge of what sort of people actually are in mental asylums

(iii) to express some sort of moral opinion about whether punishment should be applied to these people

 

ex. ‘Is progress inevitable in the twentieth century?’

 

(i) we must consider the concept of progress (and perhaps the concept of inevitability as well)

(ii) and then look at whatever facts concerning the twentieth century we consider to be relevant

 

(2) 정답 대신 핵심 찾기(‘the heart of the concept’ rather than ‘right answers’)

 

- 개념적 질문에는 어떠한 하나의 딱 떨어지는 해책이나 정답 같은 것이 없음. 우리는 이미 ‘It depends what you mean by ...’에 익숙함. 그러나 그렇다고 해서 개념이 완전히 유동적이고 누구나 아무렇게 한계를 지을 수 있는 것도 아님. 개념은 다소 모호하긴 해도 특정 조건들을 만족하고 있으며 그중에서도 핵심적인 조건들이 있음. 또한 개념은 다양하게 사용되긴 해도 개념의 핵심적인 용례와 파생적이고 비유적인 용례를 구별할 수 있음.

 

ex. ‘fish’

 

(i) being able to live in the sea (rather than rocks and shells)

(ii) being able to swim (unlike sea-anemones)

(iii) having fins and a soft body? (unlike lobsters, octopuses, jellyfish?)

 

ex. ‘truth’

(i) the case in which we talk of a statement or a belief being ‘true’

(ii) the case in which we talk of ‘a good man and true’ or ‘a true friend’

(iii) the case in which we talk of a ball on a billiard table ‘running true’

 

(3) 범례/준례(model cases)

 

- ‘Well, if that isn’t an example of so-and-so, then nothing is’라는 생각이 드는 예시가 바로 범례. 범례들을 찾은 후 그것들의 본질적 속성(essential features)을 발견해보기.

 

ex. punishment

 

(i) a boy who deliberately broke a window in the school and was beaten by his headmaster

(ii) someone who steals and is ‘punished’ by the sentence given by a judge in the law court

 

(4) 반대 사례(contary cases)

 

- ‘Well, whatever so-and-so is, that certainly isn’t an instance of it’이라는 생각이 드는 예시가 바로 반대 사례. 반대 사례들을 찾은 후 그것들의 본질적 속성을 발견하면, 반대로 개념의 본질에 접근할 수 있을 것.

 

ex. injustice (contrary concept of justice)

 

(i) an innocent person is sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit

(ii) two people commit the same crime under the same circumstances, and one gets punished but the other is let off

 

(5) 연관 사례(related cases)

 

- 어떤 개념과 유사(similar)하거나 중요하게 연결된(importantly connected) 개념이 적용된 사례. 어떤 개념을 파악하기 위해서는 개념들의 체계 속에서 그것이 어떤 위치를 차지하고 있는지 알아야 하기 때문.

 

ex. deserving (related concept of punishment or justice)

 

(i) when we are clear about the criteria for applying the related concept ‘deserving’

(ii) it may then be much easier to get clear about the original concept ‘punishment’ or ‘justice’

 

(6) 경계 사례(borderline cases)

 

- 어떤 개념을 적용시키기에는 확실하지 않은 사례. 이 사례들이 왜 불확실하고, 반대로 범례가 왜 확실한지 파악한다면, 개념의 핵심 기준(central criteria)에 접근할 수 있을 것.

 

ex. punishment

 

(i) a child touches an electric wire which he has been told is dangerous, and then gets a shock: is the shock ‘punishment’?

(ii) when we talk of a boxer ‘taking plenty of punishment’: are we serious in using the word ‘punishment’ here, or are we using it as a metaphor?

(iii) what about someone like Macbeth in Shakespeare’s play, who acted wickedly and suffered for it –can we say that ‘he brought his own punishment upon himself’?

 

(7) 발명된 사례(invented cases)

 

- 일상 경험을 통해서는 개념을 명확히 하기에 충분히 다양한 사례들이 제공되지 않을 때는 일상 경험을 넘어서는 상상을 통해 발명된 사례를 살펴볼 필요가 있음

 

ex. man

 

(i) suppose we discovered creatures hundreds of miles below the earth’s surface which looked more or less like men, and had intelligence, but had no emotions, no art, and never made jokes. Would we count them as men?

(ii) Or suppose they behaved just like men, with human emotions and all the rest, but had two heads?

(iii) Or suppose we managed to build or grow a creature which was, say, more intelligent than a very backward pygmy and which laughed, wept, sometimes behaved angrily, at other times made jokes, and so on? Would that be a man, or would we disqualify it simply because we had built it or made it grow by artificial means?

 

(8) 사회적 맥락(social context)/실용적 사례(practical case)

 

- 언어는 진공에서 사용되지 않음. 개념적 질문은 보통 일상생활에서 특정한 환경의 압력(under the pressure of particular circumstances) 하에서 던져짐. 그러니 우리는 언제, 누가, 왜 (등등) 그런 질문을 던졌는지 상상해볼 필요가 있음.

 

ex. ‘Are people ever responsible for their actions?

 

→ Who would want to say ‘This man is not responsible for his actions’? Well, let us say, a barrister defending a murderer in a court of law. He would want to say it because he wants to prevent his client being punished, perhaps: he would say it when it was clear that the man had done the murder, but when he thought there was a chance of the jury declaring him insane or irresponsible.

 

(9) 실존적 맥락(underlying anxiety)

 

- 개념적 질문이 던져지는 기분 혹은 느낌을 이해할 때, 개념 아래 놓여진 핵심적 조건을 짚어낼 수 있음

 

ex. ‘Are we ever really free?’

 

→ Many people have the feeling that modern psychology, by discovering more and more about the reasons for human behaviour, in some way threatens our freedom. [...] The underlying anxiety here consists in the feeling that, whereas hitherto one had felt in control of one’s actions, now one is not so sure: and this is useful to notice, because the notion of being in control is important for understanding the concept of freedom.

 

(10) 현실적 결과(practical results)

 

- 개념적 질문에 대한 대답이 불러일으킬 현실적 결과를 고려한다면, 개념이 어떤 식으로 문제가 되고 있고, 그래서 왜 개념적 질문이 던져졌는지 알 수 있음.

 

ex. ‘How can we know that everything isn’t an illusion?‘

 

(i) perhaps, for instance, he has found that some things, which he thought were real, were actually illusory

(ii) and this leads him to wonder whether everything is illusory.

(iii) As a reslut of such questions we are led to consider a very common concept(reality) in order to regain our security and settle our doubts.

 

(11) 언어적 유용성(results in language)

 

- 개념을 다른 의미 대신 특정 의미로써 보다 분별 있고(sensible) 유용하게(sensible) 쓸(adopt) 수 있음. 그러기 위해서는 개념을 위해 가장 유용한 기준(most useful criteria)을 선정해야 할 것. 너무 많은 곳이나 너무 적은 곳에 적용되는 의미는 유용한 의미가 아님. 유용한 의미를 찾기 위해서 반대 개념에 비추어볼 수 있음.

 

ex. democracy

 

(i) certainly, it has something to do with the idea of the people exercising some control on the government [...] We could give various instances to which the term ‘democracy’ has been applied: [...] even the ‘people’s democracies’ behind the iron curtain. [...] Thus it would b useful to have a term to contrast with ‘totalitarian’ -to describe a state which the people can oppose the authorities without too much restriction.

(ii) we could say that in no state does the people really exercise enough control over the government for us to call the state truly democratic: but then we have tied down the word so tightly and restricted it so severely that it does no work for us: for now we do not allow ourselves to call any state a democracy –we have banned the word from our working vocabulary.

 

 

3. 주의해야 할 언어적 함정

 

a. 추상적 사물에 대한 믿음(belief in abstract objects)

 

- 개념 분석은 지상이나 천상 어딘가에 존재하며 추상명사(ex. justice, love, truth)를 이름으로 가지는 추상적 사물을 일별하기 위한 보물 찾기(treasure hunt)가 아님. (ex. ‘What is justice?’ 같은 질문은 ‘What is the capital of Japan?’과 같은 질문이 아님) 그러므로 개념 분석에 있어 추상명사를 가능한 적게 사용하고 형용사의 용례를 찾아보아야 할 것. (ex. ‘justice’나 ‘truth’를 찾기보다는 ‘just’, ‘true’의 용례를 찾아보아야 함)

 

b. 사실과 가치의 혼동(confusion between fact and value)

 

- 어떤 단어(ex. good, ought, right)는 가치만을 표현하지만, 다른 어떤 단어(ex. honesty, stealing, noble, just)는 사실적 의미 아래에 가치를 함축하고 있고, 다른 어떤 단어(natural, normal, mature)는 어떤 경우에는 사실만을 다른 경우에는 가치까지 표현함. 뒤에 두 종류의 단어를 사용하는 데에 있어 가치가 도입될 수 있지만, 그 경우에는 그 도입 지점을 밝혀야 함.

 

ex. good : to be approved, commendable

ex. stealing : taking property legally another’s + this is to be condemned

ex. normal : what most people do (+this is to be approved)

 

c. 숨은 함축(unseen implication)

 

- 질문을 공정하게 답하기 위해선 배제되었어야 할 함축을 질문 속 단어가 이미 함축하고 있는 경우가 있음(some words beg the question in subtle ways). 이 경우(사소한 귀결을 피하고자 할 경우) 그 단어의 함축을 밝히고, 질문을 새로 구성하여 답하거나 그 함축을 배제하고 질문에 답해야 함.

 

ex. ‘If nature is well-ordered, must there not be a God?’

 

(i) the word ‘ordered’, like the words ‘planned’ and ‘designed’, normally implies a person who has done the ordering (or planning or designing)

(ii) loosely but still correctly, we can speak of something being well-ordered or planned or designed without implying ny such person

 

d. 동어반복(tautology)

 

- 자기가 원하는 답을 얻기 위해서 개념을 독단적으로 조작하여 정의내리는 경우가 있음. 이는 개념 분석에 있어 부정행위(cheating)이자 누구에게도 흥미롭지 않은 대답을 산출해낼 뿐.

 

ex. ‘Do all Shakespeare’s tragedies have villains in them?’

 

⇒ Iago in Othello, Edmund in King Lear (o) Julius Caesar, or Antony and Cleopatra (x)

 

(i) ‘Oh, they(Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra) aren’t really tragedies’

(ii) ‘Well, Antony in Julius Caesar and Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra aren’t really tragedies’

 

⇒ all we are now saying is really ‘I shan’t count anything as a tragedy unless it has a villain’, or else ‘If I count something as a tragedy, I shall insist that someone in it is a villain’.

 

e. 의미 확대(stretching the meaning)

 

- 단어의 의미를 확대하는 것을 금지하는 법 따위는 없지만, 자기 입장을 방어하기 위해 무리하게 단어의 의미를 확대하다가는 단어가 아무런 기능을 못하게 될 수 있음.

 

ex. ‘Do all novels have a political message?’

 

(i) The sanest way would be to keep both feet on the ground, and recognie that normally we restrict the word ‘political’ to a few novels only: amongst these we might include Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984, and so on.

(ii) We could stretch the word ‘political’, or at least the phrase ‘have a political message’, to cover more ground than in (i). Thus we could include C.P. Snow’s The Masters on the grounds that, in describing the election of the Master of a college, it gives us insight into ‘political’ methods: or we might even say that some novel about characters in the field of big business, in describing their immorality, greed, etc., carried an anti-capitalist message and was in that sense ‘political’.

(iii) But if we were to say that the novels of Jane Austen, P.G. Wodehouse and Iris Murdoch, together with the stories of Hans Andersen, A.A. Milne and Lewis Carroll, carried a political message, then the word ‘political’ has been stretched so far that it does no work, and becomes meaningless.

 

f. 마법(Magic)

 

- 우리는 관찰이나 이성에 따르기보다는 거의 항상 마법을 믿는냥 원시적이거나 유치한 사고를 무의식적으로 하고 있음. a.는 이러한 사고의 한 가지 예시에 불과함.

 

ex. ‘gravity made the stone fall downwards’

 

(i) The danger is not only that we might believe in an abstract thing or force called ‘gravity (whereas in fact all we really observe is various objects behaving in regular ways):

(ii) the dager is also that we may take the word ‘made’ too seriously. The stone was not compelled to fall: it just fell, as stones and other things always do when they are near some large body of matter.

 

ex. ‘X obey the laws of nature’

 

⇒ We are talking magic: talking as if nature and natural objects were people, or as if there were little men inside the objects ith wills of their own.

 

Thinking with Concepts, pp.16-45.