What I will be aiming at here is similar to what an encyclopedia would write on Communication (such as the Wikipedia article here). But there are some important differences. Mainly, the encyclopedia writes an article based on and backed up by empirical research, while I write an article based on introspection. The encyclopedic article naturally looks for answers without, while this kind of article looks for answers within. This kind of article is, in Jungian terms, highly introverted (subject oriented) and highly intuitive (imaginative).
Choosing a headline
When writing something with the title ”philosophy of communication” it is likely to cause problematic associations. Why? If you make a search for ”philosophy of communication” the results you will get won’t really be associated with what you are to read here. Thus the title will easily mislead readers. However, importantly, the title needs to be accurate, and if this after all is philosophy of communication, then one shouldn’t be too afraid to entitle it so.
The importance of research
Before one starts writing an article on this topic one doesn’t need to undertake any empirical research, but one would be foolish if one didn’t. Compare for example, in order to become a chess champion you don’t need to study and take learning from other chess players, but you’re making it very difficult for yourself if you don’t.
Writings that can be associated with this
Within academical philosophy, we have the ”Speech act theory” made famous by J.L. Austin. Other philosophers who followed up this discussion include John Searle and Jaques Derrida. Within fields of science, we have linguists and semioticians such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Jakobson, who studied the structure of language and communication. On top of this has to be mentioned Ludwig Wittgenstein, Pierre Bourdieu and Carl Jung.
If one tries to fit these names in one uniform context, it can hopefully give a clue of the intended context of this project. These thinkers have often been treated within different contexts, but sometimes they’ve also been associated (and associated themselves) with each other. For example, John Searle associated his concept of ”Background” with both Wittgenstein’s ”private language argument” and Bourdieu’s ”habitus” (ref); Richard Shusterman noted similarities between Austin, Wittgenstein and Bourdieu (ref); and Bourdieu referred a lot to Saussure in his writings.
I wrote this text some time ago. It is flawed, but I think it is good enough to serve as an example.