wellwisher
Well-Known Member
That is correct. Language creates subjective noise, that causes the loss of clarity within the mental entities imagination, when we try to transfer them to the imagination of others, so they can use the universal natural visual language, to see.Linguistic entities are signs of concepts (mental entities). Only the signs themselves are arbitrary and subjective.
The analogy is say you had the image of an object in your mind; imagination. It is the head of a friend. You are an artist and need to transfer that image, to a visual object using clay, so others can see; universal language of sight. A photograph would be easier; visual to visual. Language is like the clay, that we mold into the object; bridge between visual to visual. Based on your subjective/lacking or level of sculpture ability, there are limits to how realistic you can get. There is not a a complete transfer of thought with limited skills on either side.
If we add to this, the other person, may not have ever seen your friend, so what you are visualizing, no matter how it comes out, they have no clue if this is exactly what you saw, and meant, or not. But it is what they see, now, with their universal language of sight. There may not be a good meeting of the minds; some subjective haze, but not universal clarity. The clay gets in the way but it nevertheless gets us closer; your friend at least looks human.
Over time, as scholar ponder the Classics and extrapolate, the clay is molded better and better; practice makes perfect. But when we go back to the time of Plato or other ancient thinkers, they did not have an any starter clay objects. The practical problem became how to make an object that nobody has seen before, if you are not a perfect sculpture. They will not know what to compare it too, and may accept anything and become confused, comparing it only to what they are seeing. You may have to dumb it down to what is known, as an analogy, and over time, add more onto the clay figure.
The larger refined data based of modern times, allows for more analogies, as a platform for the clay goals of language. It is not smarter but easier, now. The ground floor is the hardest part and as things elevate one can stand on the shoulders of giants to see and transfer, further.
I speak not from Philosophy, but more from the practical needs of visual thought transfer into a universal language of another person's imagination, via the limits of language. Different philosophies often formed due to the clay of language, that is not perfectly formed, adding subjectivity and another branch. Then the same practical challenges appear for that new foundation.