OF LANGUAGE AND ITS USE

In my view there are three main reasons of why language was created and developed by our human ancestors: The first was so that they could express themselves as individuals and what they felt and thought, i.e., hunger, thirst, fear as well as to describe places, etc. The second was to communicate ideas about the world and themselves. The third was that it had a type of practical utility that was useful in the sense that words have exact meanings that do not alter, unless by consensus, these words represent ideas to be described that are either abstract or tangible about the world (cosmos) and this aided them in their day to day affairs. Words themselves are contingent, particular and temporary and languages are this way also, a defect in a language can hinder more rigorous forms of communication, so we can say that particular languages and words are of less importance than our own ability to describe things in the world and reality generally. Mathematics and logic are more complete than any verbal language, yet these things are also limited in comparison to the universe and the laws of nature, so mathematics and logic are never absolute forms of knowledge, they are always limited (finite) and flawed in their own way. In some ways language can be said to be an extension of physical behaviour, we even make physical gestures to fit the things that we want to express and communicate through language. The more articulate and clear we can be using language, the better, language should serve us well for the communication of ideas as well as our own inner thoughts, feelings and desires. A cynical view of language can be found in the works of thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, they attempt to make out that language is largely meaningless and not really a proper representation of the ideas of reality, but this is an absurd and unnecessary view, it is a type of sophistry, if people convince you to think that language is meaningless, then it gives them the opportunity to use more sophistry on you, real philosophers do not accept this conclusion, real philosophers know that language is logical and expressive and represents the ideas of reality adequately. Are ideas, language, grammar, logic, diagrams and mathematics a representation of reality? I am sure it is, for how else are we to represent and understand the truths of the reality that we inhabit. Nietzsche in his writing has attacked the validity of language, mathematics and logic as adequate representations of reality, he viewed these things as subjective fictions that do not represents truths, so if NASA send men to the moon using language, logic, science and mathematics, then according to Nietzsche's opinion it was just a fiction and not a real moon landing. When I mention that language represents reality, I mean to show that language corresponds to reality in the sense that it represents reality objectively and externally aside from our internal subjective conditions, otherwise language and its use would be divorced from events, facts and circumstances and would simply exist only as a subjective type of communication amongst people and would be totally divorced from objective and external events, facts and circumstances altogether. The following quote by Martin Heidegger, that "man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man" aptly leads me to a hypothesis that I have for a long time felt strongly about, in the sense that its truth seems so clear to me in my mind and of which I have no doubt is real. The hypothesis which I choose to impart to the world of which I feel so strongly about, is the fact that language increasingly becomes more efficient, logical and mathematical in nature, because language over time sheds all those vague, redundant and wooly aspects of itself that it no longer needs, language we must remember, is designed to aid communication as well as having a sort of utility to it. Those aspects of language that is most expressive for people, will in a sense be the most difficult for humans to lose control of, but in general human beings will have to adapt to a language that will become more efficient, logical and mathematical generally. There are many aspects to language development, so it is always necessary to do a thorough investigation of all the different ways in which languages are formed, if one wants to understand them. Even though some thinkers of the past have claimed that language does not represent and refer to objects in the world, they were wrong. Language does represent and refer to objects in the world, language has a type of utility in this sense. If the word cup does not refer to an actual cup in the world that we are talking about, then what does it refer to? Our use of language can only refer to the cup that we describe, our description of a particular cup that exists in a certain place can only refer to this cup and to nothing else. It is only when we are lying or when we are mistaken do our words not refer to an object, phenomenon or event, language has a dual aspect to it in the sense in which when people use it, is either true or false in its assertions, it also has elements to it that are neutral in this regard. In the philosophy of language we speak about the words that get their meaning because they represent and refer to things in the world, this aspect of language produce pictures and visualization in our minds when we think about how specific words relate to actual things in the world, we also discuss which words this applies to, this is because it cannot apply to all words in a language, they do not all produce specific or distinct pictures. Some words in a language can be considered to be more abstract and difficult to define in its usage and in how it refers to any particular thing in the world. Apart from the meaning of words and how they apply to things in the world, we also speak about the "use" or "usage" of words generally, words have a type of utility or usage in that they express many things in language as well as in how it applies to the world and ourselves generally. Words that do not have a physical or abstract counterpart in the tangible world, such as: God, hello, difficult, and, etc., can seem to be more difficult to define and concretize than other words that apply to specific things, for example, what is difficult for one person, may not be very difficult for someone else, a greeting such as hello may be genuine or it may be just a meaningless pleasantry. It is a well known fact that language shapes our minds as well as our understanding of the world generally, language shapes our whole conceptual framework of the world, yet any individual who can think for themselves (i.e., to think for oneself means to think in one's own way unaided by conventional standards of thinking, in the sense that no one is able to do your own thinking for you) can be largely shaped by their own concepts and developments in thinking, these people are able to transcend the limitations of their own language and culture in certain ways, not being able to conceptualize yourself limits you to conventional thinking, imagination is an important feature of being able to conceptualize reality in one's own way. I explained that language gets most of its meaning from representing things in the world, I also mentioned that some words in language are harder to pin down in this way, they exist more in their usage than in their exact distinctness to represent things in the world, language it is true, has many pitfalls, redundancies and ambiguities that need to be overcome, yet when language is used properly in a logical way, then most of its pitfalls can be overcome, the most useful way to overcome the flaws in it is in the ability of its users to become more articulate, clear, distinct and exact, they should endeavour to eliminate all the pitfalls that are to be found within language generally. Language also becomes effective when "context" and "description" become important features of how language is used, we should learn to make language apply to different contexts in the world and we should also use language to be highly descriptive about these contexts and situations in the world that we want to understand and explain. Language in its usage in general can never really be said to be pinned down to anything in particular, this is why language sometimes has a type of freedom to it that seems like an unending process of expression and application. When we use language in such a way that it becomes formal and contextual in the sense that we apply it this way to most situations, then this enables us to overcome this excessive freedom aspect of language. We know that language has rules. All languages are universal in the sense that they are based on reason and objectivity in that they are based on things in the world, this is why you cannot have a subjective language of your own invention that applies to anything that transcends the universal aspects of languages and how they apply to things in the world. Any proper study of language shows that in general if you can describe reality contextually and in depth, then this is a far superior tool than many complicated abstract concepts and theories concerning it, concepts and theories concerning the world should be simple and contextual, this is because reason, explanation and description are able to do so much more than conceptual generalities, philosophers in the past have confused many people with their vague concepts and generalities of the world, this in some ways has caused more problems in the world than these concepts and notions have deserved due to the true worth or merit that these concepts and notions actually have. All languages are particular and need the context, time, place and culture that they exist in to have any type of utility, for example, each language relies upon certain sounds or words that exist as a signifier to represent signified things in the world, like an object, thing, situation, event, etc., this is so even though the thing may be abstract or tangible or simply exists in the language as a word of usage only and is not that specific as relating to any particular thing in the world. A language in some ways can be said to exist separately from the world, any language that seems separate from the world, still has a type of universality to it that applies to the real world, so its separation from the world is only particular and circumstantial. Earlier in this essay I mentioned that mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages, I have reached this conclusion because any analysis of languages generally is going to be relative, seeing as though there are no absolutely complete languages in existence. I also mentioned that mathematics and logic are not absolute or absolutely complete in themselves. Mathematics and logic are more complete languages than verbal languages because verbal languages change and alter due to the semantic meaning of words and terms, whereas mathematics always retains its consistency and expansive nature, the same can be said of logic also. Mathematics and logic are not absolutely complete as languages in the fullest sense of representing reality, this is because reality in all its manifestations cannot be contained by any languages that are essentially linear, piecemeal and selective. I must point out that language is nearly always communicated in a linear fashion, a word follows a word, a few chosen words make a clause or a sentence, a sentence leads into another sentence. Language is always selective and limited in its linearity, this is why its is necessary to be careful and consistent in our use of language, otherwise our sentences can so easily be misunderstood or taken out of context. Noam Chomsky's concept of a type of universal grammar of language, exists I am sure, because only a certain number of sentences that make any logical sense can exist for any particular thing that is said that has an exact meaning as such, all other combinations of words or sentences that attempt to express this particular meaning fails to make any logical sense. All logical patterns that have meaning and express meanings in languages are finite and become a type of universal grammar. The meaning of a word is objective and contextual in the sense that the objective meaning of a word is a type of standard that everyone who uses it is able to understand and agree on, yet the meaning of a word also has a contextual element to it which depends on how the standard objective element is altered to fit the context and situation in which the word is used for any particular setting in which it gets used. I have spoken many times of the ambiguities, vagaries as well as the inaccurate expressions that exist as part of language, which I mention because of the necessity I feel that requires that we overcome the flaws inherent in the different forms that language takes on in its usage. Language needs to be improved so that we can be clear and accurate when we communicate with one other seeing as how language is inherently descriptive, logical and most useful within the context of discussions and arguments. Flaws in language tend to occur in its forms and expressions and how they are passed on and perpetuated due to laziness in language usage. As long as language adapts to fit the meaning and content of spoken ideas then language has a better chance of improving.