the role of language

[kyser_soze]

Did they find out that the ultimate answer to life is that they should drop the questions?

Read the books.

 

[Diem K]

There is no link. Truth lies outside of language. No sooner than language is brought into the equation than truth is lost. Humans belong to truth, not the other way round.

The most effective way we (humans) have of comminicating (current) meanings or definitions is through language.

The fact that truth may lie outside of language does not mean that language cannot even start to approximate toward truth.

So there is a relationship, even if its a very poor one.

A poor relationship is a truth in itself.

 

[wrysmile]

There is no link. Truth lies outside of language. No sooner than language is brought into the equation than truth is lost. Humans belong to truth, not the other way round.

Language can be used to express the truth or not to. The idea that language serves to somehow cast a shadow over some out-there universal 'truth' floating around like some sort of planet unreachable to all those except mutes is fairly difficult to swallow, imo.

By this reckoning, fish (provided they don't have a lying little fishy language) are more 'truthful' than humans.

 

[Diem K]

However a language of any kind is being used you can say that it is approximating truth.

two examples:

1) using spoken language - if someone lies about something this is not the end of truth. This is only language approximating toward the "truth" of not being honest.

2) using drawing - if someone draws an object, this is not the end of truth. This is only a drawing which approximates toward the "truth" of the appearance of that object.

 

[deeplight]

A large part of knowing is the feeling of knowing.

I can know that I have brown eyes or that I am able to type these words. I know this through past experience and reasoning within the parameters of language. But also on a level of feeling.

It strikes me that without the feeling of knowing all the logic and reasoning in the world cannot make me know that I know something bacause that feeling comes from inside of me.
I have used this point to show how there are some things that can be known outside of words as Fela says.

If knowing is a feeling then it follows that it can be felt concerning other feelings such as trancendant experiences. Most of us I recon have at some point had some kind of epifony in our life-times and when we do it is the feeling of knowing that hits us first.

This to me suggests again that knowing can be experienced outside of language. Its just that it cannot then be communicated fully.

Knowing is in essence a feeling. One that is sometimes accompanied by words but does not have to be.

 

[deeplight]

The biggest problem with words is that when we are looking we are not finding.

When we are trying we are not doing.

When we are healing we are not making wellness.

I could go on but I think the point is made.

 

[Diem K]

Another problem is that even without words or language the overwhelming feeling of knowing something may not be the truth.

Just take this example of a cool illusion I just found on another board:

http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

When you stare at the black cross in the centre and the pink spots dissappear do you "know" they are still there or do you "know" there is a green spot circling around?

Our sense organs can and do deceive, we don't even need language to degrade truth, our bodies and brain do that well enough.

 

[wrysmile]

This to me suggests again that knowing can be experienced outside of language. Its just that it cannot then be communicated fully.

Knowing is in essence a feeling. One that is sometimes accompanied by words but does not have to be.

I don't object to this as a (albeit a fluffy/vague) notion ( that certain experience may that transcend words somehow), but I do object to the assertion that 'knowing', 'truth' or whatever vague thing you want to call it can't coexist with or be explained by language. Which is what the OP is asserting.

 

[deeplight]

I don't object to this as a (albeit a fluffy/vague) notion ( that certain experience may that transcend words somehow), but I do object to the assertion that 'knowing', 'truth' or whatever vague thing you want to call it can't coexist with or be explained by language. Which is what the OP is asserting.

I did not say that it cant coexist with with language just that language without the feeling of knowing cannot help us know anything.

I did say that some forms of trancendant truth cannot be fully explained by language. They may still coexist with it, but will remain separate from it on many levels.

 

[Diem K]

I did say that some forms of trancendant truth cannot be fully explained by language.

What the hell is trancendant truth?

I am sure you can't fully explain this with language but you are gonna have to try.

 

[deeplight]

What the hell is trancendant truth?

I am sure you can't fully explain this with language but you are gonna have to try.

This bloke makes a better fist of it than I ever could.

Bloke explaining trancendant stuff

 

[Negativland]

The problem i have nowadays is that the tool of philosophy is language, and i've found an area of life that cannot be discussed in language, at least not yet. And to me that area has total answers, whereas philosophy doesn't,

What, the realm of new age platitudes?

'Going with the flow' +5 points
'Wholeness, totality' +5 points
'Beyond language' +7 points
Vaguely worded, 'meaningful' paradox +15 points
'god is within us' +7 points
'inner truth' +7 points

You too, kids, can be philosophers.

 

[fela fan]

Read the books.

No ta, i have other books to read for the foreseeable future.

 

[fela fan]

Language can be used to express the truth or not to. The idea that language serves to somehow cast a shadow over some out-there universal 'truth' floating around like some sort of planet unreachable to all those except mutes is fairly difficult to swallow, imo.

By this reckoning, fish (provided they don't have a lying little fishy language) are more 'truthful' than humans.

No there's a problem here wrysmile. Firstly, language that you think expresses the truth may well express something different to somebody else. If the essence/notion of 'truth' is that it is objective, then what you're talking about is not truth.

Language may cast shadows, but not over the universal concept of truth. It is subsumed by truth, it is lower on the hierarchy.

As for fish being truthful, now 'truthful' is a different word with different meanings to the word 'truth'. Being truthful is an activity with a doer and a receiver, whereas truth is a notion that has no agent nor receiver. Being truthful is the preserve of humans and language.

Truth is not!

 

[fela fan]

However a language of any kind is being used you can say that it is approximating truth.

two examples:

1) using spoken language - if someone lies about something this is not the end of truth. This is only language approximating toward the "truth" of not being honest.

2) using drawing - if someone draws an object, this is not the end of truth. This is only a drawing which approximates toward the "truth" of the appearance of that object.

But again, both these examples are about actions. Truth is nothing to do with an action, it is a concept/notion. Or even more accurately, it just is.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But again, both these examples are about actions. Truth is nothing to do with an action, it is a concept/notion. Or even more accurately, it just is.

Reality just is. Truth is a concept that only exists in juxtaposition to falsehood, and thus is a human construct.

 

[fela fan]

Another problem is that even without words or language the overwhelming feeling of knowing something may not be the truth.

Just take this example of a cool illusion I just found on another board:

http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

When you stare at the black cross in the centre and the pink spots dissappear do you "know" they are still there or do you "know" there is a green spot circling around?

Our sense organs can and do deceive, we don't even need language to degrade truth, our bodies and brain do that well enough.

No no, wait a minute. Truth is not about knowledge. You can't know truth. That is why language is unable to deal with truth. Knowing things belongs to the realm of language.

Truth is beyond language. You can't smell it, see it, hear it, taste it, feel it. And you can't know it.

Whatever our sense organs are stimulated by, it's not truth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No no, wait a minute. Truth is not about knowledge. You can't know truth. That is why language is unable to deal with truth. Knowing things belongs to the realm of language.

Can't deaf people know anything?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Truth is beyond language. You can't smell it, see it, hear it, taste it, feel it. And you can't know it..

Why not?

 

[fela fan]

Reality just is. Truth is a concept that only exists in juxtaposition to falsehood, and thus is a human construct.

Wrong mate. Truth is not a human construct. At least not the non-language variety. Anything that is a human construct is only a part of the whole.

Although you used nouns, in fact what you're talking about is telling the truth being a juxtoposition to telling lies. You're on about actions, human actions, which naturally can be dealt with by language.

I think you're first three words are correct though, and in fact contradict, quite rightly as i've just shown, the rest of your post.

Actions are different to notions/concepts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Knowing things belongs to the realm of language..

Knowing verbal things might belong to the realm of language, but my ability to recognize your face after a year's absence has nothing to do with language.

 

[fela fan]

Why not?

Why not? What kind of question is this? You can't ask questions like that!

But the answer is: just because. Just because that's the way it is. This is the reason that language can get in the way, can confuse, can mislead. Language currently has no ability to describe the truth.

Since truth is not a human construct, then our senses are wholly unable to react to it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why not? What kind of question is this? You can't ask questions like that!

But the answer is: just because. Just because that's the way it is. This is the reason that language can get in the way, can confuse, can mislead. Language currently has no ability to describe the truth.

Since truth is not a human construct, then our senses are wholly unable to react to it.

A volcano is not a human construct.

Cold is not a human construct.

 

[fela fan]

Knowing verbal things might belong to the realm of language, but my ability to recognize your face after a year's absence has nothing to do with language.

You're not wrong there. It would be to do with the truth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're not wrong there. It would be to do with the truth.

No, it would be to do with a different area of the brain, not the verbal area.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My dog can recognize my face, but can't speak, to my knowledge.

 

[fela fan]

...but I do object to the assertion that 'knowing', 'truth' or whatever vague thing you want to call it can't coexist with or be explained by language. Which is what the OP is asserting.

'knowing' is not the same as 'truth'. One is an action, the other is not.

I have asserted as the premise of this thread that language is a tool to be used by humans to manipulate other humans. Any human that discovers 'truth' has full control over themselves to not be manipulated.

Thus, language is recognised by those in power to be the main tool with which to retain their power over others. Who owns the language owns the power. But power is nothing to do with truth. It is a human construct.

Power is bad, truth is good. The first is exercised through language, the latter is not. It is way way above humans. But if you subscribe to it, then no human can manipulate you.

Please explain this truth with language!

 

[fela fan]

No, it would be to do with a different area of the brain, not the verbal area.

Humans and their brains (and their hearts) are part of the whole that is the truth, so yes, agreed again.

 

[fela fan]

A volcano is not a human construct.

Cold is not a human construct.

The words are.

But johnny, you're bringing in examples of the whole. Truth is a whole. No sooner than you fixate on a part than you have departed from the truth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Humans and their brains (and their hearts) are part of the whole that is the truth, so yes, agreed again.

I think I know what you're getting at, but the problem is the different choice of words.

I think what you're talking about is something closer to the tao, or the unity of things, and that doesn't have anything to do with language, aside from our attempts to describe it.