On Semantics: Internal and External questions

     I plan to make several posts concerning different topics in philosophy. I understand that it is a field that is mostly misunderstood as well as seeming somewhat arcane to those without training. One crucial aspect of philosophy that must be understood before any meaningful endeavour can be made into it's questions is that of Semantics. I'm sure you have heard before in political debates or any debates that are of a particularly deep substance, someone being accused of "just using semantics". This is both an accurate and inaccurate way of using the word 'semantics' in the context of a debate or discussion. The accusation is usually laid against someone who has merely attempted to manipulate the meanings of several words or ideas in such a way as to give them a positional advantage in the debate, or get out of a particularly problematic argument. However, this does is an unjust casting of semantics. Semantics is far more than mincing words to suit your purpose.

     The word Semantics comes from the Greek word: sēmantiká, which loosely translates as "the meaning". Semantics is a study and practice of just that; meaning. Semantics has no 'hard' rules or views such as other branches of philosophy (Ontology, Epistemology). Semantics is simply the practice of assigning specific meaning to certain words so they have a clear and consistent definition when pertaining to a specific debate or discussion. This is due not only to the fact that certain words have multiple meanings, but also to the fact that in reality words have no meaning at all. Words as we properly understand them, both their written and spoken forms, are merely representations for meaning. When you think about it, take the word [Lizard] for example, the meaning represented by the word is of vertebrate life form of any variety that belongs to the general family of reptiles. If I tell you that the word [Mackosplatis] for example, refers to a vertebrate life from belonging to the general family of reptiles, am I wrong? Maybe in common English parlance, but really, if I created the word, can I not create it's meaning? This is the chore of semantics. Identifying problematic terms and deciding an agreed upon meaning that everyone will use when discussing certain topics. A good example is Life. In common parlance the word Life has several meanings that are all contextual. However, In the Semantics of Biology, Life refers to a very specific set of criteria an object must conform to in order to be classed in the category of Life.

Internal and External Questions

      Semantics, however, does not only deal with the meaning of words. It also deals with the meaning of entire phrases or 'propositions'. It does this in relation, specifically, to questions. Much of philosophy is asking questions, and as the adage goes, you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

     The philosopher Rudolf Carnap recognized this and provided a system to better understand it. In his system there are 'Internal Questions' and 'External Questions'. Identifying what type a particular question is provides great insight not only to its answer, but how to find its answer. The main difference between Internal and External questions is how they treat their subject. To put it simply, an external question asks about the subject itself, while an Internal question asks about properties or relations of the subject.

Consider the following examples:

1. Its late. Where could they be?
2. What does it mean to be?

In the above example we have both an Internal and External question. Question (1) is an internal question as the term 'be' already has a very understood and applicable meaning such that it can be used in the way it is. Internal questions require that certain aspects of their subject be grounded already so they can make meaningful statements about it. For if what it means to 'be' is still a mystery or up for discussion, then the statement "where could they be"  would seem meaningless. Internal language allows us to make these meaningful statements that include a particular subject. External questions on the other hand, like (2), are questioning how we can make meaningful statements pertaining to the subject in question. They could also be statements that exist out side the semantic framework of their subject.
Consider the following:

1. What are the properties of this car?
2. Properties don't exist

    Statement (2) is made with external language compared to that of (1). Even though this isn't a question, the language used is still external to the subject. Be careful to see someone using external language in response to internal questions or statements, as it really muddies the waters for discussion. This is especially useful this year, as politics is in full swing and you can count on some semantic slip ups here and there.

     In conclusion, Semantics is a deep and complex field of philosophy, and one that shouldn't only be used as an insult to someone who has debated poorly. Keep on the look out for instances of Semantic distinctions and see how you feel about them, you'll find yourself asking questions you thought you already had the answer to! This is the excitement of philosophy!