Limitations Of Language

[Gatton]

“It felt like... like... God, I don’t know. I can’t explain.”

Everyone has uttered a similar phrase at least once in his life. It got me thinking – that, and an Arthur Schopenhauer biography.

Does our language limit our thoughts, our behaviour and our sensations? There are enough words to express ourselves in most situations, especially in normal day-to-day affairs. But the more intense a sensation or experience is, the more difficult it gets to describe it. Somehow “very, very very beautiful” seems to underestimate a breathtaking (see?) scene.

I haven’t mulled this over for an extended amount of time so I’ll just give one aspect – probably a tiny one too: people coming home from a long voyage can try to depict the things they’ve seen with words but the description will never reach even a modicum of the true experience. The same goes for a religious person who tries to explain their feeling of salvation (or any other religious experience, pardon my limited vocabulary) – or a teacher or philosopher who tries to share his experiences and knowledge.

Maybe the lack of words is one of the biggest obstacles to share knowledge and instil others with pure, exhilarating sensations. Is the limitation of our language – and our scent, vision or taste for that matter – keeping us away from reaching the true pinnacle of... of life?

[marleylinguistics]

that problem exists slightely with translation of the bible

for ex

the word love in our language is always said as "love" you can love your brother, your mother, your son, your wife, or your friend. that is 5 different types of love all described by one word. but in the original, greek and latin versions there would be 5 different words. so there is some problem with translations

[Gatton]

Yeah, I'm all too aware of translation problems. I'm doing Translating & Interpreting at university. :)

A lot of the Bible was seemingly "misinterpreted". I vaguely remember a teacher of mine say - many years ago - that how in our translation it says Jesus healed the cripple who couldn't walk, but in the original text it said that Jesus forgave a person who was "crippled under his sins" or something to that extent.

[WanderingTaoist]

Chuang-Tuz wrote:

"The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

"The purpose of words are to convey meaning. When the meaning is grasped, the words are forgotten."

I agree with this, and I would hold that often times we encounter fish that are too large and active to be constrained by our paltry traps. Try as we might to hold on to them, the fish eludes us, and we are left with empty traps. Perhaps there are some fish we shouldn't even try to catch through words alone: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao".

This would seem to be why so many philosophers either invent new words or heavily modify currently existing words in order to express their ideas; for example, you have Aristotle's word entelecheia, which is normally translated as "actuality". entelecheia comes from the

Greek enteles ("complete") + enchein (synonmous with "hexis" or "active condition"), while also playing off of the contentions of the words endelecheia ("persistance") and telos ("purpose"). A literal translation of entelecheia would be something along the lines of "that which is persitantly, purposefully, and actively maintaining its completion." Joe Sachs (from whom I've borrowed the etymology of entelecheia) redners this not as "actuality" but as "being-at-work-staying-itself."

As you can see, that's whole lot of words, and one wonders how much of what is meant by those words is actually grasped. Chuang Tzu went on to wryly remark, "Where is somebody who has forgotten words? It is to them that I would like to speak."

[Starry_Canopy]

There is another pernicious thing that words do. They make us stop experiencing reality and switch over to experiencing our concepts of the reality.

J Krishnamurti quite often expresses the view that we must get beyond 'labels' if we really want to 'live/ be alive'. For example, he says, "When you see a flower, what do you see? Do you see it as 'a rose' or do you see its 'colour of pink' or its 'petals/ sepels/ stem/ stamen etc."... or do you see it?"

[Fool Zero]

There is another pernicious thing that words do. They make us stop experiencing reality and switch over to experiencing our concepts of the reality.

:o Words do that?

You don't suppose we might have something to do with choosing to use words for that purpose?

[scameter]

I agree, language is limited. But I think the reason it is limited is because thought is limited. Language is the backbone of thought, I think; every thought that we have has language in it, or is entirely lingual. But, true experiences cannot be truly conveyed through words. This is because words, as they are, are created conceptually and given conceptual definitions; they are not subjective. But, experience is totally subjective. This is much of why, for instance, Taoism speaks against words, as it does all of conceptuality, calling them hollow, limited and hindering to people truly experiencing life, which to them is more real than language. It's also why science does not always consider psychology to be within it; psychology deals with behavior, which is essentially dealing with experience, which is subjective. Science, however, does not deal with the subjective; science has a defined, set method of discovering things, and it applies it, and unless this is fully done a result cannot be considered definitely scientific. So, this does limit science, as science is not very adept at incorporating that which is experienced and subjective. To me, language is a very beautiful, spiritual thing, just as thought it's self is, and is no less real than that which is experienced. I think that language is a very unique thing for humans, and should not be scorned because it isn't capable of conveyind experience, or because it is not as entirely defined as something like numbers.

[CSwriter1]

A lot of the Bible was seemingly "misinterpreted". I vaguely remember a teacher of mine say - many years ago - that how in our translation it says Jesus healed the cripple who couldn't walk, but in the original text it said that Jesus forgave a person who was "crippled under his sins" or something to that extent

Now that makes sense! I feel ripped off knowing someone twisted what Jesus said for a goal other than telling the truth. Knowing more about who did this would be interesting. Surely, this person or persons, were unaware of the trouble they would cause by changing words to meet a goal other than truth. The wars that would be fought. The social conflict over what is true, etc. .

[CSwriter1]

There is another pernicious thing that words do. They make us stop experiencing reality and switch over to experiencing our concepts of the reality.

I was going to say this, but explain it a little differently. From my experience with trying to write about moment in time that is very emotional in nature, I realized thinking represses the feeling of the moment. I wanted to capture a feeling experience on paper, but the more I analized the experience to find the right words for expressing it, the more vague the feeling became.

This is because feelings are right brain, and critical thinking, such as deciding the right words to use, or what we really saw and did, is left brain. When we engage the left brain, we over ride the right brain.

This is why when we are hurting and in panic because something is seriously wrong with our body, the medical person will ask for details until you want to scream, "what the hell difference does it make, stop the pain, but don't cut off my leg. Oh God, I don't want to die".

Or when sexually aroused at the wrong time, or too close to ejaculation before she is ready, it is helpful to think about foot ball, and exactly how that play was made.

Whenever a person is excessively emotional, like say having a panic attack, or ready to rip someone's head off, it is important that person feel heard, and therefore is focused on thinking instead of feeling.

An experience is not just what we experience, but our emotional reaction to what we experience as well. True the English language is too materialistic and a poor one for expressing feelings, but it is also a matter of canceling out feeling with thought.

Chinese is a poetic language. I would love to experience that language and what it does a person's thinking. Nothing in that language is as concrete as our linear, materialistic language.

[WanderingTaoist]

I think we're all in agreement, then, that words are limited. I must voice my complete agreement with scameter, CSwriter1, and Starry_Canopy, who have, I think, very eloquently stated the inadequacy of words.

Ironically, though, we all did it through the use of words themselves! :D

Having established pretty firmly that words are very much limited, and are perhaps to a certain extent harmful to our experience of reality as authentic, what do you propose we do? Should we eliminate words altogether?

While I know some people who definately favor abolishing language, I can't say I'm in favor of it. There's a proper place for everything, including words and conceptualized thought. I think we can have both of them, as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that they can encapsulate everything. We should view them, perhaps, as the famous Zen finger pointing to the moon: as signs directing the way to something, but not the thing which is signified.

Of course, I could be wrong, so I'm very much interested in hearing what you have to think. :thumbsup:

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A lot of the Bible was seemingly "misinterpreted". I vaguely remember a teacher of mine say - many years ago - that how in our translation it says Jesus healed the cripple who couldn't walk, but in the original text it said that Jesus forgave a person who was "crippled under his sins" or something to that extent.

That's a pretty big difference.

[locomotive]

"as signs directing the way to something, but not the thing which is signified. "

thats is basically why people communicate.

[WanderingTaoist]

Originally posted by @--
thats is basically why people communicate.

Precisely, but I think the sticking point for many is that often times we get so caught up in our signs that they become symbols---both the signed and the thing signified. And as a result we either compartmentalize life or become removed from it.

[Arctic-Stranger]

A lot of the Bible was seemingly "misinterpreted". I vaguely remember a teacher of mine say - many years ago - that how in our translation it says Jesus healed the cripple who couldn't walk, but in the original text it said that Jesus forgave a person who was "crippled under his sins" or something to that extent.

Not quite. Jesus heals the cripple man (Mark 1 or 2, I dont remember) AND he also forgives his sins.

Getting "behind the text" is always a tricky procedure, and can be dangerous at times. (German scholars were the best at it, and their work ended up butressing Nazi convictions--the scholars stripped Jesus from his Jewishness--in the hopes of getting behind the text--which You Know Who picked up for anti-semitic harangues.

There is a very good book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhlich (? I am doing this by memory) that gives a good overview of the "story behind the story" in the New Testament.

[scameter]

Having established pretty firmly that words are very much limited, and are perhaps to a certain extent harmful to our experience of reality as authentic, what do you propose we do? Should we eliminate words altogether?

I don't think that words are "very limited", or harmful. They can be harmful, if used with the intent for being so, but not language in and of it's self. And if we were to eliminate language entirely, we would have to eliminate the human psyche as it is entirely. As Carl Jung said, everything we experience our conscious mind takes in and places symbolic meaning on. Language is simply the method of conveying this meaning communicatively.

There's a proper place for everything, including words and conceptualized thought. I think we can have both of them, as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that they can encapsulate everything. We should view them, perhaps, as the famous Zen finger pointing to the moon: as signs directing the way to something, but not the thing which is signified.

Definitely. Words are signs; they are concepts which represent things experienced, but with added meaning. The difference between signs and symbols is that the meaning of signs is rather obvious, but the meaning of symbols is alot less obvious and requires investigation. Words, like numbers, are signs. Thus, they should be viewed as such: important to us, but not in and of themselves.

thats is basically why people communicate.

Yep. :thumbsup:

Getting "behind the text" is always a tricky procedure, and can be dangerous at times.

Certainly. Which is why symbolic texts, such as the Bible and other mythologies, shouldn't be taken literally or absolutely. They should be interpreted, but those interpretations should not be viewed as whole or exact.

[WanderingTaoist]

I don't think that words are "very limited", or harmful. They can be harmful, if used with the intent for being so, but not language in and of it's self. And if we were to eliminate language entirely, we would have to eliminate the human psyche as it is entirely. As Carl Jung said, everything we experience our conscious mind takes in and places symbolic meaning on. Language is simply the method of conveying this meaning communicatively.

There we go; you just expanded, corrected, clarified, and basically perfected what I was trying to say. Thanks! :)

Your distinction is absolutely right; in and of itself, language is neutral. That's also an interesting point about how fundamental it is to the human psyche. It brings to mind various thought experiments from various philosophers about what would happen to an infant who was isolated and not exposed to language....I think the case of Helen Keller is quite a compelling one for backing up Jung's assertion. Even somebody who was unable to learn languages in the conventional way was able to learn to communicate. It seems to be inherent to being human.


Certainly. Which is why symbolic texts, such as the Bible and other mythologies, shouldn't be taken literally or absolutely. They should be interpreted, but those interpretations should not be viewed as whole or exact.

I think it's interesting that in several threads in the past few days hermeneutics and language keeps coming up. I find it fascinating that such a topic seems to have such important implications in so many different areas. I'm tempted to start a whole new thread on hermeneutics and interpetation, but I think that might be too general (interpretation of what??).

[locomotive]

"Precisely, but I think the sticking point for many is that often times we get so caught up in our signs that they become symbols---both the signed and the thing signified. And as a result we either compartmentalize life or become removed from it. "

ow you mean like when someone yells at you and tells you what to do you compartmentalize it and then forget about it or do nothing with it? Also there are people who think they are doing something with it but then it is just another conceptualization.
Indeed this kind of behaviour defeats the purpose of communication. The person talking does not achieve his goal because the listener does the wrong thing with the information and the person talking is to busy with his symbols to notice he is not getting the desired effect(if he even remembers what he wanted in the first place).

[______]

pardon my limited vocabulary
I can't tell you just how much this frustrates me sometimes! :P

[scameter]

Even somebody who was unable to learn languages in the conventional way was able to learn to communicate. It seems to be inherent to being human.

As much as the psyche it's self. :)

I think it's interesting that in several threads in the past few days hermeneutics and language keeps coming up. I find it fascinating that such a topic seems to have such important implications in so many different areas. I'm tempted to start a whole new thread on hermeneutics and interpetation, but I think that might be too general (interpretation of what??).

The reason is the true for all expressions of the human psyche: it is inherent in us. Language, emotion, belief, art, logic, passion, awareness, choice. These are all things that are fundamental in our psyche, and are the root of the various forms of expression in human culture.

I can't tell you just how much this frustrates me sometimes!

Yes, you seem quite lingually challenged, compared to my massive intellect! :lol: