Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ngn0318 t1_j8q0efa wrote

Language vs experiences

I am curious what others thoughts are on this… does language limit our understanding of experiences and our understanding of meaning? So many times I hear ppl use a word that in my opinion is more symbolic of a greater meaning but many times people limit the word to how they were taught about it or how they understand that specific word. For example.. the word ‘god’, to me the word god is just symbolic for a higher power/energy/consciousness, it’s not limited to a person or a single experience… it’s all encompassing and the foundation of it is love in its purest form… many times I have conversations and use the word god and it seems I often lose ppl in translation because of the limited understanding of limited meaning they assigned to the word ‘god’. I wonder how often we do this in life… when we experience something greater but based on our understanding of the language we’ve learned; how often our perspective of that experience can be so limiting only for the mere fact of being limited by the language we know. If we experience something and can’t provide the right language to give it meaning, does that diminish our experience?

5

EnvironmentalMud9948 t1_j8ryyuj wrote

All languages are going to shape our expression of thought and our audience's understanding of those thoughts. However, I do not believe this diminishes understanding and it might even enhance it. If our thoughts are like a garden hose than language is our thumb over the nozzle. Language directs and intensifies our thoughts, and there is a tradeoff. We lose the fluidity and transience of our original thoughts in exchange for a clear and useful expression. So while invoking the name of God risks oversimplification it also condenses a large amount of information and context into one word. Furthermore, the more language we apply to an idea the closer we can recreate our thoughts.

3

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j8v7dq8 wrote

I'll add that I take the Wittgensteinian view that language's meaning is determined by its use. This means that words can have different meanings, or at least intended meanings, not only in different contexts but also by different people. When a baby says "Mama", it isn't just saying someone's name, it is asking for its mother's attention. When a Muslim says God ("Allah" in Arabic), they typically mean something very different from what a Christian means. When you listen to someone talk, in order to understand what they mean you have to make many inferences into how they are using their words. Arts like poetry and rap can utilise this to layer meanings on top of each other. When you are trying to communicate something precisely, you need to try to make it as easy as possible for others to correctly infer what you mean. That may mean abandoning or giving a definition for what you mean by "god".

1

Qawali t1_j90ds16 wrote

language is the use of words that reference ideas, which make it so you can put that idea into someone elses brain

language both limits and allows understanding of things. it can be used to trade thoughts, philosophies, ideas, trade, and emotions, but it will not be able to communicate the subjectivity of our own experience.

there is a word for the subjectivity of your experience, and its called qualia. essentially, it is how it feels to experience. how the fuck would you tell a blind person what its like to see? you cant. that is the one true barrier of language. we are, essentially, alone in our own experiences - our own qualia

1