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.

Read More

Is Procrastination Thought About Wrongly?

There was a day. During this day, I realized I was procrastinating. I was playing video games intensely for a few hours in the evening despite having a lot of tasks to do but my mood was uneven since I was glad to procrastinate.

Whenever we think about procrastination, we have only one emotion: guilt and occasional anger. Why? Because we could’ve done something better instead of spending time doing leisure activities.

I don’t disagree. Yes, you’re right. Procrastination does indeed make us do activities we otherwise don’t want to and are often escaping from the task we ought to do.

But it’s also important to look at the deeper reason. Let’s say I had an English exam tomorrow but I was still procrastinating by exercising that evening. Am I wrong? Yes I’m wrong in terms of being effective.

While that’s the case, what if I did the same but I procrastinated two days before the exam? I don’t think it’s wrong. We often procrastinate not because we want to waste time but because we think there is enough time to waste. It may sound similar but there’s a huge difference.

I mean, is it really wrong to procrastinate if I know it would only take a day to study while I have five days left? What do you expect? For me to study all five days? I find that if you’re optimizing for being effective then it’s actually detrimental to do so.

Of course, we can talk about the difference between effectiveness and efficiency but that’s a different topic.

Read More

Understand or to be Obedient?

I think we all have lived a meaningful chunk of life whether that is twenty or fifty years. And anyone who lived that long finds few patterns in life. Of course, if you do not think much then you probably did not but anyways today I’m sharing about one of the patterns I have thought about a bit.

It’s an interesting dynamic we have in human relations. The person who is obedient and follows every order is seen as the so-called ‘good guy’ while those who question everything are seen as ‘rebellious’.

But it’s not completely wrong. We want someone who contributes to society, not a wheelchair skeptic so someone who actively takes up our duties is naturally appreciated. But are there any disadvantages of such a life?

On a surface level, there aren’t many. At most, you seem easy to bully if you’re an obedient person but on a deeper level, you do lose valuable lessons if you didn’t otherwise. These valuable lessons instead would have been taught to the one who questions instead.

Is it simply enough to know the specifications of an order or the why and how behind one?

In this theoretical framework, if someone lived a life where they didn’t question anything compared to one who did then the one who did undoubtedly knows far more than one who doesn’t.

While that’s obvious, I think it ties back to the common phrase we hear: “Don’t give them the fish, instead teach them how to catch one.”

Read More

Who is Everyone?

In life, we often define terms. These terms can go from specific terminology that’s present in biology such as zoology and others. These kinds of terminologies are rather strict and understood instantly since they are defined for a specific narrow purpose.

There are also other terminologies which are confusing. For example, a simple one can be a pen. Is it black, blue, red or other rare colors of a pen? We don’t know but we assume it to be blue since it’s the most common.

Perhaps if a teacher uses it, a red pen but regardless, this is an easier example. A more confusing example could be a building. Is this building an apartment, a high-rise office tower, a mansion or other dozens of varieties of buildings?

I’m questioning because I am interested in our definitions. To clarify, we are not talking about the nature of language and its grammar per se but simply what we assume when a word is used. By grammar, it could be the difference between homophones etc but by assumption, we are talking what humans generally assume the instant we hear about it.

Today, I’m exploring the wording of ‘everyone’. When we say everyone, what do we exactly mean? Are we talking about literally everyone? Or are we merely assuming a certain subset of everyone? If so, on what basis though?

I am not silly enough to question whether it’s literally everyone or not. Any sane individual knows when we say everyone, we aren’t literally saying everyone but what needs to be challenged is the reasoning behind a subset of everyone.

If someone says, “I hate that everyone these days is littering the streets.” Perhaps such a certain contains anger and frustration but more so, in this context everyone seems to be the majority of the people.

After all, if literally everyone is littering the street then he would not say people these days are littering since it would become a regular occurrence. Only because it’s becoming far more often than the past is he bringing it up.

But on a deeper note, let’s say person A and B littered the public space. Person A littered because he couldn’t find a dustbin while Person B did so accidentally. My point is Person B does not litter intentionally.

Doesn’t this contradict our above silent agreement that everyone is assumed based on a certain subset of people? But clearly, Person A and B are vastly different. Person B would not even litter usually while Person A does without any guilt. Can these two people really be a part of everyone?

Read More