Language is one of my interests.  It fascinates me a lot.  I believe that if could master language or a particular language I could have the ability to understand better.  I could read faster because I am at home with the language employed, and because could comprehend well what I would be reading.  I could also speak confidently and spontaneously because I know words are always available in my mind.  Furthermore, I could listen very well and get the true meaning which the speaker wants to convey.  I could also describe vividly what I have seen or experienced.  I will use simple and familiar words, so that my audience would understand me easily.

I value mastery of a language.  That is why I really want to improve my English communication skills.  How I wish I will become fluent in English.  Most of the times, I cannot write or speak because I could not put my thoughts into English.  And I always remember the command of my professor in English – Think in English.  It is hard because most of the times I think in Tagalog; seldom that I think directly in English.

            I am also keen of exploring foreign languages.  I want to know the basics of a language.  I’m especially interested with Spanish language.  Being the language of our longest colonizer, it had a great influence on our mother tongue – Tagalog.  I bet Spanish language also affects our way of thinking, because we use more Spanish loan words than our original Tagalog words.  Moreover, I am also dreaming of reading the original Spanish of Noli and Fili of our national hero – Jose Rizal.  How I wish I could accomplish this.

            Because of my interest in language, philosophy of language has a very great impact to me.  I just wonder if I could have in-depth reading of philosophy of language.  For this moment I will explore ordinary-language-philosophy, one of the traditions in analytic philosophy.

Ordinary-language-philosophy, which was headed by Gilbert Ryle and John Austin, used conceptual analysis as its framework.  It views language analysis, not just as a way to cure philosophers of their philosophical pathology, but also as a positive method for doing philosophy by systematically exploring the traditional philosophical topics, using ordinary language as a guide for mapping the regions of our conceptual landscape.

            Let me cut the above paragraph into pieces so that it would be lighter for digestion.  Language analysts, such as Gilbert Ryle and John Austin, agree that ordinary language is sufficient to do philosophy.  There is no need to invent a perfect language.

            Analyzing concepts and knowing their connections, interrelations, etc., are some duties of philosophy.  Language analysis can cure philosophers of their philosophical pathology.  This means that problems can be solved by examining all the concepts, words, ideas involved in the problem.  Analytic philosophers believe that philosophical puzzles, problems, and contradictions are not found in the world, but in the things we say about the world.  There is just misinterpretation between what was said and what was meant to be.  Philosophical problems can first be clarified and then solved or dissolved by either analyzing or reforming the language employed.

            Thus, analytic philosophers either solve the problem or dissolve the problem.  For them, problems which cannot be solved nor dissolved are just pseudo-problems and are not worth worrying about.

Philosophy remains in the mind, unless it is expressed in language either in oral or written form.  And so,             language plays a crucial role in doing philosophy.  I am interested with language and the mastery of which would definitely help me in pursuing philosophy.