Do these statements mean exactly the same thing: (a) You should not not buy that book. (b) You should buy that book.

Hi! I think this is a philosophical question concerning language. I just read this in a newspaper: "They share neither an underlying raison d'être nor a modus operandi." And the question is: what is the language of this sentence?

Am I correct to think that learning one's native language greatly is the best method to becoming an intelligent, much thinking person? For it seems to me that words relate one to reality (to the extent that one can become related to reality). As I learn new words each day (I buy books similar to Merriam-Websters Vocabulary Builder and read them daily, among other books), I feel as though they are figuratively unlocking doors to new thoughts that were not accessible by my mind without the words. Is this a fact: one is literally superior in thought (not in an imaginative sense) to one without the words the former knows? Or am I an arrogant charlatan, and think I am better for just knowing some words? Or, better yet, why are words so powerful? Could you please recommend some books that elucidate the answer to my questions?

I am an artist interested in ambiguity and irony. One day I had a brainwave: if I could just establish the answer to a seemingly simple question, then the way would be clear to develop a geometry of irony and several questions that really bug me would never need answering again. The question relates to Carly Simon's song 'You're So Vain' and, simply put is: How true is it that the song is about you? The implied statement in the chorus -"You probably think this song is about you"- is that 'You think this song is about you because you're vain, but in actual fact the song is not about you'. This is a strong reading of the implied statement and there is another, that 'You think this song is about you because you're vain, and you are right'. We should also consider whether or not it is consistent with the lyrics to state the the song is, indeed, about 'you'. This case would invalidate the statement "You're so vain" and leave "I bet you think this song is about you" hanging. The most interesting case for me...

Do you think that there are important differences between general thoughts (like "People are animals" or "Everybody must pay their taxes") and concrete ones (like "That cat is an animal" or "I must pay my taxes")?

Many different intellectuals have argued that using language in a certain way conduces to certain attitudes and beliefs in the speaker (I'm thinking mostly of feminist theorists who argue that our language both betrays and reinforces sexist and heteronormative worldviews). A great deal of literature presupposes the truth of this idea. I can see why this is such an attractive theory; it seems entirely plausible, and, if true, its implications would be deep. At the same time, however, I wonder if philosophers and theorists aren't overstepping their bounds in claims like this; if a certain way of talking inclines us toward a certain way of thinking and acting, isn't this in fact an empirical question? I can imagine how using masculine pronouns could instill sexist attitudes in a person -- but imagining is very different from proving.

What constitutes vulgar and obscene language: the heart or intended meaning, or the words in and of themseves? Are there words which are intrinsically bad, like the word "fuck" for instance. If I said "fuck you" that would definitely be a bad thing, but if I simply said "fuck that", implying that, for instance, I did not want anything to do with a particular thing, is that word still bad?

What is the difference between the philosophy of language and linguistics?

Students of foreign language often remark that to learn a new language is to acquire a new mode of thought. Do they mean to suggest that certain thoughts are only possible in certain languages? If so, I don't see how this can work! How can I, as an English speaker learning French, discover thoughts in French which I could not have expressed in English? I needed English to get there!

Why is it so easy to define "island" and so difficult to define "dog"? Both terms refer to quite "natural" and well-known things. We can say that an island is an area of land surrounded by water, but we can't say, for instance, that a dog is an animal that barks, since a sick dog that can't bark is still a dog. It is also curious that we all know what a dog is without knowing the zoological definition of this species. Is there a name for this difference between the two words?