Language as ordinary and mysterious
For a second, the reader might think, why even talk so much about language? Language is so ordinary even small children can do it. But yet, when Cavell discusses language, it isn't through the lens of normalcy, but through the lens of the absurd, the unique, and the unexplainable. Cavell feels that language is bizarre when understood for its ability to refer other people to concepts or emotions, by sounds or lines on a page. He sees that language has a strangely meaningful quality that defies explanation.
The irony of academy
Another irony is Cavell's point of view on academy. In his point of view, the academy both helps and hurts. When ideas are canonized that shouldn't be, then Cavell feels an obligation to dismantle those arguments. His view frames academy with an inherent vice: the ego and intention of the writers who dare approach these mysterious philosophical questions. Cavell says that Poole gave his readers a false sense of security in regard to the late writings of Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein's arguments and irony
Wittgenstein is addressed as an intellectual authority on the issue of language (because he is one of the most important historical voices on the subject). Yet, his arguments are so complicated, and the body of his writing is so comprehensive and expansive (he wrote for many years), that this book can be seen in some ways as an attempt to reframe the discussion around language. Cavell feels that in a weird way, Wittgenstein's point of view was so genius that it gets misunderstood often, which actually hurts the academy.
The irony of language and meaning
The book addresses the ironic nature of meaning. Humans intent to convey meaning with language, and in some ways, language does communicate their intended meaning, but Cavell suggests that the reality of how that intention is fulfilled might be counterintuitive. Sometimes it feels like the meaning is in the words themselves, but Cavell suggests that the meaning might actually be located in the performance of language itself, not in the specific meanings of specific words.
The irony of knowledge
Cavell's treatment of language involves human knowledge, because humans have to know the same lists of concepts in order to communicate through language. But, ironically, language can only refer someone to their own mental concept for that word's association, so there is an irony in human knowledge, because everyone understands the quality of words a little differently, but we understand each other anyway because we know the same words, but do we ever really understand each other? Can we even know what another person truly 'means?' This is Cavell's question.
