Have you ever had an experience where you could picture someone in your mind but you could not remember their name? How about having an idea or phrase on the tip of your tongue where you could not come up with the words to express it? If so, you have proven the primary principle of Logical Positivism false.
The basic principle is that language comes before meaning. This leads to the verifiability principle which in thirteen words or less states: "If something cannot be expressed logically, mathematically, or systematically, then it is meaningless."
The problem is that the truth has to be the other way around, that is to say meaning comes before language. Thus, Philosophy must not rely on language as its basis of truth. Not only syntactically, but also semantically. There are three reasons why: 1. The mind is capable of understanding more than is capable of expressing in language. 2. Language exists as nothing more than a means of communication between sentient beings. 3. There are not two, but three levels of language as communication.
First, that the mind is capable of understanding beyond its ability to conceptualize it, should be obvious to any introspective person. Not only for the aforementioned tip of the tongue experiences, but also the occasional religious/intuition experiences that allow us to realize things without being able to understand the logic behind them. Granted, I would take logic over intuition any day, but I have had enough experience to know intuition is real enough.
Second, we have tied the hands of Philosophy by basing it on language. This is probably due to the insistence of logic in philosophical thought. Logical postulates are sentences that express ideas, Logical Positivism and other analytical philosophies seem to believe that the sentence is on trial rather than the idea. Language is a medium for information exchange and nothing more. True, we would all be better off if our language was more precise, at least precise enough to express any idea without being vague. Yet it seems that it is not possible.
Third, logicians and linguists have attempted to fix the language problem by taking into account both syntax (structure) and semantics (meaning). Yet, there is a whole other level of language that has been ignored, what I call schematics. Psychologists and artificial intelligence researchers have both discovered that a vital part of language has to do with time, place, background knowledge, and the belief systems of the people communicating. Schematic communication breaks down when the belief system of the two communicators is different. This may be due to culture, or a misunderstanding of setting. Language gets trapped in cultural contexts. See "The Psychology of Schemes" for more examples and history of this idea.
Still, even if we return philosophy back to the land of ideas where it belongs, we must still have a means of communicating so that ideas can be transmitted and understood. The answer is redundancy. It is the means by which any form of communication can reduce any inherent noise.
In technical terms, redundancy is the means by which signal to noise ratios can be reduced without a technical overhaul. Cellular phones are notorious for being fuzzy and hampering communications, but if a caller does not understand, the caller can repeat what was said. This is redundancy. Why do you think CD players have "over sampling"? It is to make sure that the output is exact, the more redundancy, the clearer the signal. In technical terms, redundancy is the means by which signal to noise ratios can be reduced without a technical overhaul.
This redundancy idea comes from mathematician Claud Shannon. His "Information Theory" states that all forms of communication is subject to noise. This noise problem ultimately reduces the amount of information that the medium can carry successfully. Redundancy in the message can dramatically increase its chances of successful transmission.
Philosophers should follow this example. Since language is just a form of communication, we should try repeating what we are saying in different ways. Use illustrations, parables, analogies, explain your entire belief system if you have to, to avoid being misunderstood. Language is an art form, not a wall to hang the picture on. Use it.
A Guide to Logical Positivism is available.
Next: Existentialist BS