Barriers of meaning in language

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It is interesting that most philosophical debates work their way into getting technical about semantics and meaning of certain words. We apply “specific” meanings to certain frames of thought, but there are certain linguistic rules we have to adhere to and the formalities of our language must be adhered to in order to convey meaning.

So once we get to the bare bones of any argument which is found in meaning and definitions of terms to reflect thought, we can go no further.

We are confined by the limits and laws of our language. Yet, the thing is: how can we criticize the limitations of language with anything other than the language itself?

We cannot or at least I do not think we can. We are dependant upon the language itself to convey our ideas and even consider our own thoughts. The language sets the rules for our thought as opposed to us setting the rules for our language to our thought. We are confined to the barriers of our language and the language itself is untouchable because it can only be reviewed through itself.

I realize many philosophers have mentioned this, but I’m curious to what insights others have on this dependance on language and our inability to convey thought beyond such limitations?

2

I agree that language is a huge factor in communicating thoughts. And that,

“We apply “specific” meanings to certain frames of thought,” BUT I do not agree that,

“there are certain linguistic rules we have to adhere to and the formalities of our language must be adhered to in order to convey meaning.”

I do not think there are any certain “linguistic” rules nor formalities we have to adhere to in order to convey meaning. I think there are plenty of other ways beyond your mouth to communicate. There are implications with your eyes, eyebrows, body movements etc. We are confined to our language but our language is not confined to words. The greatest thoughts have been communicated through the arts and sciences. Inexplicable with words, yet worth so much meaning. You know the saying “A picutre is worth a thousand words?” What about a dance? A mathematical discovery? A good song? All these things are ways of conveying meaning.

Now to this you might say with good reason, “These forms of communication are ambiguous and undefined. There is no possible way to argue towards the truth of something with them for they are beyond any specifc meaning.”

You could be right in arguing from that perspective. Arts and sciences do not use concrete words that can be re-ordered and studied in an argument. Words give us more definitive meaning due to a more common understanding of them. But what is this common understanding of them? Every dictionary seems to have a different wording. Further than that every person has his or her own perception of that definition. So are words even as accurate and precise in defining thoughts as we attribute them to be? Isn’t the fact that they are not, most of the reason why we even argue over them so much?

I believe words are just as ambiguous as any form of communication. We have our seperate meanings for everything we say. The way we’ve experienced the contexts of certain words in relation to others and in relation to other experiences creates a huge seperation in the commonness of any semantics that might be attributed to any sentence or writing for that matter. Every utterance comes with the subjectivity of the speaker AND the listener.

So how do we [i]specifically[i] communicate then if everything is seemingly useless due to subjectivity? Even words? Well that’s a pretty good question if you ask me. How DO we communicate? Well what is communication? Webster’s online defines communicate as

[v] transmit thoughts or feelings; “He communicated his anxieties to the psychiatrist”
[v] transmit information ; “Please communicate this message to all employees”
[v] join or connect; “The rooms communicated”
[v] transfer to another; “communicate a disease”

So, if communication is defined as such, then isn’t every thought the end of a communication? Doesn’t every idea come from somewhere? I mean you can’t just think without thinking about something right? And the only reason you thought about it is because you percieved it first. So in turn, cannot a thought be taken from anything? Can you not [i]think[i] of anything you remember in your experience. Can you not glean some meaning from every memory. And if that is true, isn’t everything you experience in your entire life in some form or another [i]communicating[i] to you?

Communication is happening every second of everyday. The world is talking to us. We can try and use our language to sum it up but our language will never express the truth of reality as it truly exists. We can only listen and learn as each part of it is revealed to us. We can only make the best of what we have for now in relation to forever.

Now I’m not saying we should just listen to some hippie nature stuff and all that shit. I’m just saying we should listen to and respect EVERY thought in our head whether it comes from the lowest or highest facet of life, and get the most out of it.

We may be confined to our language in communication, but what’s so bad about that?

3

I understand where you are coming from and I appreciate your insights. I really like how you pointed how communication through things such as body language and pictures. Admittingly I never paid much heed to such forms of communication and thankful you pointed them out.

However, I am still stuck on the notion of how we can augment the restrictions of language when we are dependant upon language in order to do so.

We cannot utilize body language or paint a picture in order to be critical of language itself beyond language. In order to criticize language, we have to utilize the language itself which carries meanings that we must deem “absolute” in some sense to accept. This is not necessarily a “bad” thing, but it is the point in which all of thought eventually comes to a deadend.

Perhaps you will notice that many philosophical argument eventually work themselves down to arguments of meaning and/or semantics. We cannot go any further than this because we are dependant upon the linguistic rules inevitably. We could of course go paint a picture or convey our emotions through body language, but language is still very much part of that process. We are conditioned through such rules of meaning to mold our own thought and there is nothing we can really do about. Language protects itself through our reliance upon it.

4

Again I agree with the fact that we are confined to our language. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to augment the restrictions of language. We cannot even recognize its limitations we can only recognize our own limited ability to use it. Of course we can only talk and think about the only stuff we know. Everything else is relatively unimportant unless it pertains to what we already know.

I know what you mean by our thoughts being limited to the mere symbols we have experienced in our lifetime, but what else in this world is there even to imagine? Why would we want to think about something no one can percieve?

As far as I’m concerned, we have all we need in language, and a little bit more. I don’t believe I have it though, it’s just out there waiting for me to use it.

5

It is not so much as a desire to augment the language as it is recognizing that we are restricted from doing so with my perspective.

This isn’t a proclamation of desire to alter language itself as it is just recognizing that if we did want to alter language we would have to use language itself to do so. Our reliance on such rules prevents us from doing so. Our reliance on language and linguistic meaning would be essential for us to even consider altering language and linguistic meaning. There is nothing of use beyond this barrier outside of ourselves. Some philosophers have proposed creating a new language in order to break away from traditional restriction of linguistic rules and it is a compelling thought.

You seem to see such a perspective as a desire to alter our language and I want to emphasize potential more so than desire although I agree that desire is something that needs to be considered. Please recognize that if we DID desire to alter our language that we are dependant upon language itself in order to do so. We would have to apply the rules and linguisting meaning encorporated in language to alter language itself. These rules are self-preserving. We are so dependant upon these rules for meaning that we have no choice but to accept them as such. To question them we would have to go BEYOND such rules and how can we do so if we are confined to them?

It is in’t a question of why would we want to alter our means of communicating meaning as it is having the capacity to alter the means of communicating meaning which we are confined to through linguistic laws of meaning relative to language itself.

I appreciate your input. Thanks.