If there is any branch of philosophy that at least sounds like it would be boring and pointless, it would be the philosophy of language. Could anything be more mind-numbing than sitting around analyzing the use of words and language? We must remember, though, that so much of what we done is expressed through language - and that can make the philosophy of language vital. It can, for example, help us analyze attempted political smears and the contortions used to defend them.

Many readers may be familiar with the Ann Coulter's attempt to smear Max Cleland. Conservative columnist Max Steyn, who doesn't have the reputation of being a clown like Coulter, has attempted to defend Coulter by saying that her article was "literally" true.

Chris at Crooked Timber explains that there is much more to language, though, than the literal meaning of one's words:

[M]ost human discourse, and especially most op-ed comment, doesn’t take the form of simply informing the reader of the literal meaning of a series of sentences. Indeed, its principal goal is, to put things in rather 18th-century terms, the inflammation of the passions. The purpose of Coulter and Steyn in writing the sentences they wrote wasn’t to convey an accurate picture of Cleland’s military and political career (a task which would have taken many, no doubt tedious, volumes). It was rather to demean and belittle him in the eyes of their readers and to neutralize him as a critic of the US Republican Party and the Bush administration. To appeal to the literal truth of the few sentences they wrote is as disingenuous here as Marc Antony saying that Brutus was an honourable man and is no defence at all to the charge that they were engaged in a foul smear. At least, it is nowhere close to being sufficient to rebut that charge partly because of the inevitably selective nature of the “facts” they chose to recount.

Insofar as speech is a type of action with real-word consequences, it is important for us to keep in mind that we must bear responsibility not only for the literal meaning of the words we use but also for whatever we intend our words to do. If we intend our words to hurt, then even if our words are true then we cannot evade any intention to cause harm to others. Of course, such harm might be justified - we might, for example, be trying to harm the reputation of a person who achieved their good name through deceit and deception. We should be pleased to take responsibility for getting out the truth in that case.

On the other hand, we might be trying to damage the reputation of a person who earned it by spreading information about true, but irrelevant, things that go on in their personal lives. The fact that such information is true wouldn't relieve us of the moral responsibility of trying to hurt someone not because they deserved it, but because we didn't like them and/or we disagreed with them. The "truth" may be a legal defense against accusations of libel, but it's not necessarily an ethical defense.

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Philosophy of Language