Labels are a necessity in the organization of

knowledge, but they also constrain our

understanding.

Sifeddine Akaaboune

IB May 2020-21
 Labelling is a method and concept that is used globally, however often ne-
glected in its value. Two important areas must be applied in order to properly
label anything: the label and what it labels, which is in relation to denotation.
As seen in Goodman’s Aesthetics, the approach on this idea is that possessing
a feature(property) simply amounts to being denoted by a certain predicate, or
more precisely, by a “label”. Furthermore, labels have a broad use; we can use
labels in several areas, it is not limited to linguistics i.e. the use of pictures,
musical symbols, and several others classify global concepts. The fundamental
notion of this concept is its value as a reference point or a guiding line to a
concept, object, or anything that can be labelled1 . The applied concepts in
art clear use of labels, the label itself and what it represents. Squares, cir-
cles, any shape can have or be a label but the importance lies in the features
and symbolization of that label. A simple example can be seen in the diago-
nal lines used in art, the label here is the “diagonal line” or the visual shape
itself which represents motion in the static frame. However, are labels absolute?

Art is a subject of abstract concepts which can be represented in numerous

ways and perspectives based on the artist holding the brush, but this subjectiv-
ity requires labels for an individual to understand what they are looking at. The
possible outcome of a label can be based on the context, it isn’t a function with
an input and one output, it is more complex. Labels are subject to change, in
art the different concepts are used differently based on the artist which means
that the “label” can change what it labels. In languages words are the labels
used to symbolize an idea which can be understood by others. Furthermore,
one word(or one label) can apply different definitions based on the context of
the phrase or sentence, labels are not absolute, they may change but do not lose
meaning. Although labels have a broad and simple use, its efficiency can dras-
tically change whether it becomes useful or not(mostly in a global perspective).
How well the label can be understood and used globally will suggest its value
and efficiency. For instance, the notation of Calculus which we use today was
made by Leibniz, however, the concept itself was developed by Isaac Newton.
The reason we use Leibniz’s notation is in regards to the understanding of that
notation, most individuals could not grasp the notations which Newton famil-
iarised himself with and therefore chose a different method of notation which
could be understood globally. The label may have changed, but what it labels
has not.

In order to understand the effect of labels on the structure of knowledge we

must first come to an understanding of what knowledge in itself means. Let us
define knowledge as the basis of understanding, the pieces of a puzzle in simpler
terms. Several bits of knowledge are used in combination to solve a problem
or to understand it. This definition, although be it clear and concise, is flawed
in several aspects. Knowledge may differ based on the context it is applied in,
1 Giovannelli, Alessandro. “Goodman’s Aesthetics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Stanford University, 9 Aug. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman-aesthetics/.

1
for instance, the concept of innovation. Although we can use this definition in
innovation it cannot be said in all cases. Leonardo da Vinci, a polymath from
the 15th century, was known for his innovative mind. He would come up with
several ideas and concepts which in theory could facilitate our lives. Further-
more, da Vinci’s concept of flying machines was not understood by other people
of his era. The knowledge which he provided was not simply an understanding
of a topic, but an imaginative approach towards the limits of what humans can
accomplish. Leonardo da Vinci’s work hadn’t been the focus of a problem, but
an exploration of new concepts which could simplify our daily lives or provide
an adequate understanding of the world we live in. This portrays the difficulty
in defining knowledge with a simple sentence, we can only manage to define
parts of it based on a given situation.

The organisation of knowledge is important for us to structure thoughts and

ideas, therefore we create different methods that may help in the process of or-
ganisation. As previously mentioned, labels have indeed played a big role in the
help for structuring ideas, but how effective has it been? During the late 17th
century Isaac Newton had developed the theory of infinitesimal calculus which
became well known in the domain of both mathematics and sciences. This cre-
ated a whole new branch in mathematics and was taught in academics, however
there had been an issue with the understanding of this topic. This problem
arose due to the complex notation that Isaac had made; most people could
not properly understand this branch due to the notation and therefore looked
for a new method they could adapt. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a german
philosopher that had also been working on the development of calculus and in
fact created an entirely different notation system than what Isaac had been us-
ing. The simplified notations allowed for a proper understanding of the subject
by scholars which in turns became the default notation system for calculus up
to this day. Creating complex labels to represent simple or complex ideas will
result in a lack of understanding by others, as we’ve seen with Isaac’s case. The
efficiency of organisation of knowledge relies on the coherence of labels which
relies on the labels being simple enough to be globally accepted and understood.

Is the method of labelling truly a catalyst in the process of organising knowl-

edge? We’ve seen that labels have simplified the understanding of knowledge
to a certain extent, however, labels themselves are also flawed in several as-
pects. The research of historical knowledge has had a significant impact on
our understanding today, but the problem lies in the interpretation of historical
knowledge. Language, which is the tool we use to discuss knowledge, is not as
objective as mathematics and therefore different languages may have definitions
which have been influenced by the culture where the language originated from
and differ from others. The translation of books cannot be simply translated
literally in the same way we translate shapes in math. One must translate the
culture in order to translate the text. The translation of the Greek philosophy
by Cicero had not been as simple as translating each word into Latin, Cicero
himself believed that in order to truly translate the philosophy he needed to

2
translate the Greek culture which he did. A literal translation would have been
easy work, but his focus was to “teach philosophy to speak Latin”(Tusculan
Disputations 2.3)2 . The problem of translating texts and most specially histor-
ical texts is the assumption of the meaning it brings, the labels used in different
languages do not always represent the same idea or emotion and therefore trans-
lating texts may lead to misunderstandings which are a result of the constraints
the labels have put in language. Although language has developed throughout
history in order to understand each other, the systematic bias caused from the
language is there nonetheless. This happens most especially in cases where the
culture of both sides has a large gap between them such as the Eastern world and
the Western world. Chinese philosophy has been extremely difficult to translate
into English, French, German, or any other Western language. This is due to
the large cultural difference that has developed overtime, the Chinese idioms
and studies are what made the Chinese culture and therefore differs largely due
to the different experiences that Western countries such as Greece have experi-
enced.

We have glanced at the opportunities and constraints labels bring to us,

however, these rely on memory. Labels are created throughout history and de-
velop overtime, such as language which tends to change words or add words and
meanings. But to what extent does memory substantiate the understanding of
knowledge? We must observe the utility of memory, which proves to be deficient
in long term necessities such as subjects in sciences and mathematics which de-
velop at a rapid pace and accumulate massive amounts of information. In other
words, memory is flawed; it is inefficient in retaining large amounts of data and
in turns disturbs proper understanding. Memories can be seen as thoughts and
labels aren’t always retained in thoughts. We think not in language, but what we
think is translated into language. In the book “The Language Instincts”, the
psychologist and author Steven Pinker includes an interesting concept which
relates to humans having an innate language of thought(mentalese), he says
“Knowing a language, then, is knowing how to translate mentalese into strings
of words, and vice versa”3 . Using this concept we can understand that memory
is inefficient in retaining labels, because we retain the idea behind that label in
a different language of thought which can be translated using labels. Memory
is effective in retaining ideas but not their labels over long periods of time and
therefore leading to labels becoming unuseful if not physically recorded.

Word count : 1522

2 MCELDUFF, SIOBHN. COMPLICATING THE HISTORY OF WESTERN TRANSLA-

TION: the Ancient Mediterranean in Perspective. TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2016.

3 ”The Language Instinct” (1994: 82)

3
Bibliography

[1] Giovannelli, Alessandro. “Goodman’s Aesthetics.” Stanford En-

cyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 Aug. 2017,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman-aesthetics/.
[2] Pritchard, Duncan, et al. “The Value of Knowledge.” Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 7 Mar. 2018,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/.

[3] Rosemont Jr., Henry. “Translating and Interpreting Chinese Philosophy.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 Aug. 2019,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-translate-interpret/.
[4] Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and
Mind. London: Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, 1994. Print.
[5] MCELDUFF, SIOBHN. COMPLICATING THE HISTORY OF WEST-
ERN TRANSLA- TION: the Ancient Mediterranean in Perspective. TAY-
LOR FRANCIS, 2016