Language is Flawed

Everyday we use language. There’s not a day when we don’t use it. This seems surprisingly perceived as a concept that is fundamental to life such as water and fire although our ancestors did not share the same sentiment (they did not have a system of language as we have. If we go back enough, they probably used murals as language).

While something may have immense benefits to it, there exists none without any trade-offs. If something has an upside, there is surely a downside to it because that’s how reality works. That being said, it is only right to question such an outlandish notion but that’s a topic I will write about another day.

Language is flawed because it cannot convey meaning as we think it does.

Of course, this is not to confuse the nature of language and the varieties of language. My critique is not about English or Japanese but rather general flaws present in every language.

While that’s true, it is interesting to note how a primary language used for decades may impact someone’s disposition. I would not be surprised if people who spoke Japanese their entire lives would have a softer disposition otherwise. However, it would not be wrong to critique this since it may be an aspect of culture more so than the language itself so a good comparison would be one of the same culture yet different languages.

Coming back to the topic, a flaw about language is how certain terms may exist in theory but never in practice. In fact, extremes only serve in theory but not much in practice. Ironically, the word theory and practice are extremes but if we analyze, it is hard to say if they can exist solely as a concept in reality without overlap.

A more easier example would be that of introverts and extroverts. A common extreme but in reality, can someone be an introvert? Because for someone to be hundred percent an introvert, they need to be home all the time but this is obviously not true. It makes sense to characterize it instead as percentages rather than complete introverts or extroverts.

Anyways, language can only express knowledge to its fullest, not experiences since that only be an approximation.

Though, if something cannot be explained in words then the speaker is incompetent language-wise or it is an experience that only can be felt, not told. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

What do I mean? If what you experience can be summarized as words to your friend but can your friend know your experience just by the words? No, they can only overlap and approximate what you mean.

If you saw a specific sunrise during hiking and told it to your friend then he may relate to it if he has seen a sunrise but even then, your entire image of sunrise is very different from what he may have experienced in a sunrise because both are different sunrises.

That being said, this example is one where he knows or experienced the experience but what if he doesn’t know it? What if your friend never saw a desert but you described one. Can he experience the desert? Not really.

An experience can never be described but only experienced as obvious as it sounds yet we often make the mistake of equalizing the two. Of course, if we had a comparable example of the experience itself then it may prove to be true to some extent but this is only a smart guess we make.

This reveals it’s real worth: language is nothing but a signpost to express what we experience.

You can explain the color of red with its fullest description and detail but to a blind man, it sounds like jargon since he never experienced the color of red. He may now have a signpost as to what the color is but he never knows it since he doesn’t know it!

An easier way to understand: we may name a subject but if the person did not experience the subject itself then the name holds no meaning to be conveyed i.e., language.

Of course, if the man knew all the colors except red for some reason then he may overlap his experiences of other colors and approximate the meaning of the color of red.

We can only convey things that we know and experience and thus, language is a medium between us and its transmission.

This also leads to another issue we did not discuss so far: meaning of words. So far we assumed the meaning of words were unpolluted and meant as they were but this is sadly not true.

The meaning of words is often underlined and assumed but they can be completely different things to different people or even if they don’t, it may only overlap, not a synonym we’d like to think it is.

This is why oral practices existed in Hinduism and Buddhism. While we have lost scriptures as a result, it also maintained the purity of the intended expression unlike today. This only gets worse when we consider the multifaceted nature of meaning within context such as in haiku.

This aspect of language only gets exacerbated when we add the internet to the equation. There is no expression of words on the internet. Whether they mean it literally, as a joke or multiple meanings can only be concluded by researching its context if there exists any and make a smart guess about it.

Anyways, if you read so far, you may be interested in the defintion of everyone I wrote which overlaps this topic.

Food for thought.