The Limits of Language
So…
I wanted to blog about something a little different than usual.
I wanted to share some of the insights I had in a blog series on some of the philosophical ideas and concepts associated with the readings from class.
To complete my undergraduate degree, it requires taking a rare elective classes, and I ended up registering for philosophy on a whim. To be honest, I didn’t know much about philosophy, ideologies, or perspective: on how to study for the class, or how to write a philosophy paper. Philosophy ended up being a very intriguing class for me. It was looking over intensive and assignments required more time, because responses naturally required more thought. Across-the-board, I would say the class is 35% reading, 40% thinking 10% typing/writing tasks and 15% going down rabbit holes. I genuinely enjoyed the class readings and overarching concepts. I wouldn't mind taking it again or delving further into philosophy.
So here is some background information and text excerpt.
We read Philosophical investigations, by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Translated by G. E. M. Anscobe
Here is an excerpt:
119. “The results of philosophy are the uncovering of one or another piece of plain nonsense and of bumps that the understanding has got by running its head up against the limits of language. These bumps make us see the value of the discovery.”
I found this interesting. And… here’s where I went with it:
Philosophy is not about the discovery of absolute true and false, right and wrong, or finding an explicit answer to understand existence as we perceive it. There is more to philosophy than finding connections and validating our reality with perceptions. Philosophy is meaningless without language, but our language is subjective. Is our reality inherently biased by our own perception? Language may only have meaning when we give words meaning through our perceived ideas. Our philosophical thought is cultivated through parts and pieces of understanding. It is a product of our consciousness, which is constantly indirectly and directly influenced by many different stimuli. But these stimuli are projections of illusions and perceptions working in tandem as our reality. But our reality is subjective through the language we use to articulate with as well. Words are powerful tools even the smallest has the potential to be the most significant. Everything, every word can be interpreted differently, as there are no invariable truths other than our perceived truths. Metaphorical translations, can be poetically realigned. Fragments of truth can be exaggerated, bent, and still adopted. Our truths are merely manufactured by the social constructs we cultivate & chose to perpetuate. We uncover truths that existed before we were aware of them, but these truths are perceived and language may limit these truths if interpreted differently. Philosophy can’t attempt to provide definite answers with ambiguous language, otherwise there may be conflicting realities existing.
The language that we use to express or communicate is limited by the rules we regularly respect. This limits the extent to which we truly know and understand things. We are limited in the way we can think about a new problem, because of language. Assertions can be dichotomous. I presume Ludwig Wittgenstein wants people to be open to other interpretations that may not be true in the same significance we perceive them to be true. Because we can never achieve absolute truth by way of language or terminology. As we discover meaningless nonsense, we inherently give it value. Value is cultivated through our perceived awareness. But these problems and answers we are looking for do not need a solution. The need to be seen with an open interpretation, even if that interpretation opposes what we expect should be. Our language limits our thoughts if we remain committed to only accepting truths as what we know. Ultimately, I think the writer wants us to acknowledge expressions can be used for educational purposes and scenarios where they are always true, but as we uncover more knowledge, we need to be open to changing those words provided the context. We can generalize, but there are boundaries. The ambiguity perpetuates confusion.
