Does Language Hinder Our Progress? (verse)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Personally I have met niether.

Well, then let me introduce myself. And I account for both groups.

[doppelgänger]

Language doesn't convey "truth." That's not its purpose. Here are two excerpts from two different philosophers that express this idea nicely:

First, Constantin Brunner, from Our Christ: Revolt of the Mystical Genius:

[O]ur knowing only applies to our body and is only valid for the practice of living. It explains why, if our knowing tries to go beyond the practice of our thingly existence in a thingly world and attempts to render cognition of it, this whole thingly world entirely crumbles. Things are not being; they are non-Being. And non-being here does not mean "absolute nothing"; non-being means non-Being, i.e. not being absolute. It means that things, as they appear to us as things, are not "there" as absolutely as they seem; this appearance of things is only that grasp of absolute Being which is available to our thingly existence. In other words, things are a construction on the part of our thinking, serving our egoism. Our thinking in terms of things is the framework we construct in order to live, including the no less marvelous infrastructure of our language. Things give us a hold on Being; words give us a grasp of things. Things are an invention on our part, and this invention "invents" words. And we relative things, human things, simply have to think as if things existed externally to thought. . .

[The Abolute, or Unity or Cogitant] cannot be spoken about in the manner in which ideated things are spoken about. It just is not a thing serving the purposes of our living; and it is only things, only relatively as known to us in the form of representation and concept that can actually be spoken about. Of absolute being no intelligence comes into our reason and into our perception. Rather, our reason comes into Absolute Being; and then it does speak and express itself - figuratively! This figurative expression of relative reason modified by the absolute is sensed by the spiritual; not so, however, by the superstitious.

And Nietzsche, from Twilight of the Idols:

The meaning of "knowledge": here, as in the case of "good" or "beautiful," the concept is to be regarded in a strict and narrow anthropocentric and biological sense. In order for a particular species to maintain itself and increase its power, its conception of reality must comprehend enough of the calculable and constant for it to base a scheme of behavior on it. The utility of preservation - not some abstract theoretical need not to be deceived - stands as the motive behind the development of the organs of knowledge; they develop in such a way that their observations suffice for our preservation. In other words: the measure of the desire for knowledge depends upon the measure to which the will to power grows in a species: a species grasps a certain amount of reality in order to become master of it, in order to press it into service.

Both Nietzsche and Brunner understand that the genuine experience of the truth occurs outside of language. Language creates a useful world of "things" for me to grasp and control for my benefit, but the fragmented world perceived through words and symbols and the relationship between objects in thought, no matter how useful, is not the true world.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by mball1297

It seems to foster the process of mistaking signs for things signified,

I disagree that language itself fosters this error... it seems that lack of philosophy or wisdom would foster this...

and promotes a superficial understanding of everything. Does it ever really allow us to break free from its grip?

I disagree here, too. I would not reduce "loss" to "superficiality."

I think that we are simply limited by our restraints as humans - our imprefection and inability to receive and communicate knowledge in an absolutely perfect way. However, just because we are not gods does not mean that our measure of understanding is completely superficial, because language does allow us to be as sophisticated and intricate as humanly possible as we continually try to grow in our knowledge and understanding.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Language doesn't convey "truth."

That depends on your definitions of "convey" and "truth."

I would say that inasmuch as we can know and communicate truth, it is encased in language.

Both Nietzsche and Brunner understand that the genuine experience of the truth occurs outside of language. Language creates a useful world of "things" for me to grasp and control for my benefit, but the fragmented world perceived through words and symbols and the relationship between objects in thought, no matter how useful, is not the true world.

Thank you, Mr. Plato?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That depends on your definitions of "convey" and "truth."

Yes it does. The broader point is that signs are not what they signify.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I would say that inasmuch as we can know and communicate truth, it is encased in language.

And I would respond that the "truth" we "know" and "communicate," is at best only "usefully true." And its usefulness changes as my purposes change.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Thank you, Mr. Plato?

You're welcome?

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Language doesn't convey "truth." That's not its purpose. Here are two excerpts from two different philosophers that express this idea nicely:

First, Constantin Brunner, from Our Christ: Revolt of the Mystical Genius:



And Nietzsche, from Twilight of the Idols:



Both Nietzsche and Brunner understand that the genuine experience of the truth occurs outside of language. Language creates a useful world of "things" for me to grasp and control for my benefit, but the fragmented world perceived through words and symbols and the relationship between objects in thought, no matter how useful, is not the true world.

Thank you, and that's true. The problem then becomes remembering that the language and symbols are only a useful tool and not the truth. In that regard, do you think that language hinders us from experienceing the "truth", or do you think it's a necessary guideline which can lead us to the "truth", even though it isn't the "truth" itself?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Yes it does. The broader point is that signs are not what they signify.

Yes, I agree that signs are not what they signify, but that does not mean that language cannot convey truth. If a person can experience truth - whether encased in language or not - and then use language to signify that truth to someone else, and the other person is able to imaginatively experience that same truth, albeit slightly modifyed by their own experience - the sign is still not the thing signified.

And I would respond that the "truth" we "know" and "communicate," is at best only "usefully true." And its usefulness changes as my purposes change.

Yeah, I think that we are on the same page...