Langauge, a mode of communication? w/ Schopenhauer

  Language, as perceived by many, is a mode of communication between two or more individuals either directly or indirectly. However, is language really the mode of “communication”? The word communication means that the thoughts of both the listener and the speaker would be coherent and understanding, at least of the facts. The cases of the miscommunication are in fact the result of faulty communication, the advocates of language as a tool for communication say. However, the language’s purpose today is not really on communication but rather to express one’s own perspective to others. In a way, it can be implied similar to “communication” but this “expression of one’s perspective” clearly is closer angle at expressing the term language.

  The above definition confirms that language is prone to miscommunication between the people; for its purpose is not in communication but stating different perceptions. Language use is another utterance in nature perceived differently by both the speaker and the listener. Arthur Schopenhauer said that ‘‘the world is my idea’ ….   that what he knows is not a sun and an earth , but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself.” He meant that all the thing we interact with in this world is in fact just the idea imputed by different senses projected only in the brain. Thus the utterances are just another input to the listener, which is susceptible to perception of the perceiver, the individual. As the language use is another form which is vulnerable against the perception of the listener, it’s the mode of expression only for the speaker, or in the case of writing, the writer, and whether another individual understands such utterances relies heavily on the perception of that individual.

  Bearing that the language is susceptible to the individuals, language as perception fits how people communicate. When a person sees a flower, he interprets color, shape, and other visible (or olfactory) characteristics of that flower. He expresses these characteristics by speech or by writing. Assuming the listener or the reader realize this language as communication tool, they either only agree or disagree and approve or disapprove of that statement. Through reasoning they do this and by that means through deductive or inductive methods. When the receiver interprets the given language use through these methods, we encounter miscommunication. The deliverer only claimed, such things like color and shape, but the people generally assume other characteristics acquired by their previous experiences/ perceptions. “We really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words,” Nietzsche said. For example, the statement, “I think” can be interpreted in numerous ways: that it is I who think, and thinking operation requires some sort of subject that things, that there is an ego for which ‘I think” or that I know what thinking is. However, the essence of the expression, “I think” is just that “I think.” And the listener or the reader should not and cannot assume the reason or the state of which the deliverer is in, for they are above the perception of one and these assumptions of language have caused miscommunication.

  This sort of relinquishing the assumptions and being at the interaction of different perceptions, when different perceptions clash, may be most effectively explained in situations when talking to a foreigner when the “language” – as in French or Korean- is different. When a French man says, “bonjour,” –under presupposition that we do not understand French – he intended to say “hello,” and he did say “hello” under his perceptions. But to us, it brings no assumptions of what he means. It is just an utterance of which bears absolutely no meaning. The clash between perceptions causes different results, in language, miscommunication. If the perceptions of perceiver are indeed ours and ours only, as Fichte said, “As both, I must be what I am, absolutely by myself alone – by myself originate conceptions, by myself produce a condition of things lying beyond these conceptions.” Where the conceptions are only in existence because of my existence, I as an existence creates this world beyond my existence. Thus where perceptions of mine are justified this so-called language for communication is invalid.

  This language for communication had blind-folded the mankind, and caused different unnecessary conflicts. As the fox in the Little Prince said that “Language is the source of misunderstandings,” trusting the language solely as if it was the tool for communication, had caused misunderstandings far beyond another, when in fact, it was no more than mere expression of different perceptions. Language had provided mindless assumptions derived from the utterance of others and will continue to. However, what is important is that language is a form of expression of such perception. Difference in perception and the difference in expression cause the language to work differently.

  By this I am not challenging the purpose of language and how it was created but the fact in which trust in this utterances which are just our perceptions had caused many miscommunications and its purpose to be marred. And the misunderstanding of the purpose of language now have caused the gap of the misunderstandings to be wider and excluded us from the perception we must receive as the result of language interaction. So the moment we eliminate this misunderstanding, we eliminate the misunderstanding and fabrication, and free ourselves into experiences through our existence to be ours and thus realize the purpose of language is mere expression. In order to accurately catch at least the intended facts of which the deliverer is stating, the information or the thoughts, the acceptance of language not as a tool for communication for you but the expression of the perceptions of the writer or the speakers is vital.

-plz forgive the errors in grammer, spelling, and use of terms-

Advertisement