Does our English language cause us from knowing reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
A poster from an old thread said we can’t know reality as it really is outside of our mind because our English language is limiting. Here is what he said. Is it true?

*The problem here, again, is that English does not accommodate forms of insight available to some other languages due to its limiting grammar. The “in the mind only” idea of solipsism (the idea that one cannot prove existence of anything outside one’s own mental perceptions) is applicable as well to the idea of “I” as it is misunderstood in English. This problem is pointed to by RA Heinlein who said that “…in English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” This is an accurate statement, vital to understanding both religion and philosophy, and almost always dismissed up front by Western religionists. It is also at the root of the wholesale misunderstanding of the Teaching attributed to Jesus.

It would be good and useful for anyone involved in a philosophical discussion to understand these distinctions. Now it is possible that the solipsist in question is a tyro and is ignorantly though sincerely enamored of the idea he espouses. That is fine, as so many are equally enamored with their particular christianist interpretations of the Jesus Teachings. But nevertheless, we are here at a disadvantage in our language, English, because of its essentially dualistic structure, and the pervasive subject-verb-object sequencing that brings with it certain necessary lenses that distort the actuality of the world, as if we see much of it as it is to begin with…grammatical filtering…*
 
“Reality”, as meaning the world external to our being, is the same whether you speak English, Spanish or pig-Latin.

The problem is that in US English, we have a propensity to elevate certain terms to buzzwords, using them as doublespeak. “Reality” itself is one of those buzzwords; instead of meaning “what is truthfully out there,” it is used by philosophical types to mean “an unknowable mystery” or equivalent.

The existence of gender terms for nouns in other languages is used by some to bolster the current societal gender confusion.

“I” is another US English buzzword. It is not a simple first-person descriptor, but is now loaded with all kinds of existentialism. This might not be unique to English however.

ICXC NIKA
 
Our ability to communicate is indeed limited by our language, complicated by the fact that each person’s understanding of the language develops entirely from his experience. I see how this keeps us from communicating what we know about reality.

I am not sure I see how that relates to our knowledge of that which we experience, but I’ll work with you: I suppose I know what it is to eat a fresh strawberry. After all, I have eaten lots of strawberries. Now suppose there is a strawberry expert who is more observant and thoughtful than I. By words and actions, he could expand my understanding, for example by drawing my attention to the interaction of all five senses, together with my movements, my physiological response, and the full trajectory of emotions before, during, and after the eating. Then I would know the reality of eating strawberries a little better than before.

I suppose this relates also to philosophy, and perhaps to Christian faith. By words and actions, we can build each other up in knowledge and faith. Does the language make a difference?

The guitarist Leo Kottke once spoke of a very special guitar and an epiphany:
It was a vintage Gibson B-45 12-string that brought to life most of Kottke’s early classics on [his debut album] 6 and 12 String Guitar.

“That Gibson. It was literally anomalous. I don’t think there have been any others like that. It was stolen in Portland, Oregon, and I went on an endless search, not for a good 12-string, but to get that sound back.”

After complaining about his guitar during a show in Los Angeles, Kottke was visited backstage by Dick Rosmini, whose Elektra record Adventures of 6 and 12 String Guitar Kottke loved. Rosmini told him, “You know, it really doesn’t matter what guitar you play. It’s all to do with your playing,” Kottke recalls. “And he picked up this guitar that I had just been whining about and made it sound beautiful. Stunning. He had no [finger] picks on and had no trouble whatsoever making it sound wonderful.” (source)
So perhaps we shouldn’t be too quick to blame the language for our failure to communicate.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
A poster from an old thread said we can’t know reality as it really is outside of our mind because our English language is limiting. Here is what he said. Is it true?

*The problem here, again, is that English does not accommodate forms of insight available to some other languages due to its limiting grammar. The “in the mind only” idea of solipsism (the idea that one cannot prove existence of anything outside one’s own mental perceptions) is applicable as well to the idea of “I” as it is misunderstood in English. This problem is pointed to by RA Heinlein who said that “…in English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” This is an accurate statement, vital to understanding both religion and philosophy, and almost always dismissed up front by Western religionists. It is also at the root of the wholesale misunderstanding of the Teaching attributed to Jesus.

It would be good and useful for anyone involved in a philosophical discussion to understand these distinctions. Now it is possible that the solipsist in question is a tyro and is ignorantly though sincerely enamored of the idea he espouses. That is fine, as so many are equally enamored with their particular christianist interpretations of the Jesus Teachings. But nevertheless, we are here at a disadvantage in our language, English, because of its essentially dualistic structure, and the pervasive subject-verb-object sequencing that brings with it certain necessary lenses that distort the actuality of the world, as if we see much of it as it is to begin with…grammatical filtering…*
Click to expand...
Subject-verb-object structure is hardly unique to English. I’m no linguist, but subject-verb-object is extremely common in French as well. True, the adjectives in French often follow the modified noun, rather than preceding it as is usual in English. But the subject-verb-object sequence is as common in French as it is in English.

In some Indo-European languages, like Latin and (I’m told) in German, the verb follows the object. But does that really change the meaning?

And how, exactly, is English uniquely “dualistic”?

Again, and having no claim to being a linguist, I’ll go with Tom Wolfe in accepting that language is an artifact; that is, crafted by man to serve his purposes, just as any tool is. So, in devising a language, people design it to express not only what they mean directly in any particular sentence, but do so in a way that word combinations can communicate more than their literal meaning, depending on the understandings people wish to adopt for them conventionally. “Whole sentence acronyms”, as it were. One has to grant that the English language is difficult for people for whom it is not the first language, and exactly because it has so many “acronymic” expressions. There are many ways of saying the same thing, with slightly different nuances to each.

So it seems to me, people devise language in order to communicate what they wish to communicate, not the reverse. Language is not the limiter of communication, except in the most extreme cases in which a people saw no useful purpose in developing language to serve certain purposes. Wolfe’s example is the language of the Piraha in Brazil. They live a hand-to-mouth existence in the jungle, and have never devised words for past or future, left or right, or even numbers. While devising such words might be useful to them in some contexts, it isn’t at all in their daily lives. So they just never came up with them. But they could. Their language did not somehow prevent them from understanding the past or the future or numbers. They simply did not devise words or expressions for them because they didn’t need them.
 
I’m having trouble understand what is meant by:

The “in the mind only” idea of solipsism (the idea that one cannot prove existence of anything outside one’s own mental perceptions) is applicable as well to the idea of “I” as it is misunderstood in English.

and

This problem is pointed to by RA Heinlein who said that "…in English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.

I’m not understanding the assertion made here and what it has to do with an external reality
 
I speak German, English, Italian, Portuguese, and French, though I can understand Scots. (I only speak English fluently). Ummm…, so we can’t know reality why?
 
Ben_Sinner said:
A poster from an old thread said we can’t know reality as it really is outside of our mind because our English language is limiting. Here is what he said. Is it true?

*The problem here, again, is that English does not accommodate forms of insight available to some other languages due to its limiting grammar. The “in the mind only” idea of solipsism (the idea that one cannot prove existence of anything outside one’s own mental perceptions) is applicable as well to the idea of “I” as it is misunderstood in English. This problem is pointed to by RA Heinlein who said that “…in English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” This is an accurate statement, vital to understanding both religion and philosophy, and almost always dismissed up front by Western religionists. It is also at the root of the wholesale misunderstanding of the Teaching attributed to Jesus.

It would be good and useful for anyone involved in a philosophical discussion to understand these distinctions. Now it is possible that the solipsist in question is a tyro and is ignorantly though sincerely enamored of the idea he espouses. That is fine, as so many are equally enamored with their particular christianist interpretations of the Jesus Teachings. But nevertheless, we are here at a disadvantage in our language, English, because of its essentially dualistic structure, and the pervasive subject-verb-object sequencing that brings with it certain necessary lenses that distort the actuality of the world, as if we see much of it as it is to begin with…grammatical filtering…*
Click to expand...
This guy wrote in English what he thought. Therefore, if he is right, then he is wrong.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
This problem is pointed to by RA Heinlein who said that “…in English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.”

I’m not understanding the assertion made here and what it has to do with an external reality
Click to expand...
Perhaps Heinlein meant something like this: What is the first person singular present tense of the verb “to be”? It is “I am.” That is the only thing we can be sure of.

I am.

That is even how God described himself. (Exodus 3:14)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top