The Limits of Language and the Essence of Ontological Experience
A reflection on the interplay between language, shared symbols, and the deeply personal nature of meaning
Introduction
Language is humanity’s most powerful tool for communication and understanding, yet it is inherently limited in its ability to convey the depth of personal, ontological experiences. Words act as references, symbols shared within a society, yet their meanings diverge based on individual interpretations. This essay explores the nature of language as a medium for expressing ontological experience, drawing upon the philosophies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Carl Jung, and Fritz Mauthner, while interweaving a personal perspective on the responsibility of the communicator.
The Limits of Words: Wittgenstein and the Symbolic Nature of Language
Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his Philosophical Investigations, argues that the meaning of words is derived from their use in “language games” within a specific cultural and social context. Words, therefore, are not precise conveyors of meaning but tools shaped by communal practices. Wittgenstein’s notion emphasizes that language is inherently public, and its effectiveness depends on shared understanding.
This idea parallels Carl Jung’s concept of archetypes — universal, symbolic patterns embedded in the collective unconscious. Words and archetypes both serve as symbolic tools for expressing shared human experiences. While words are rooted in linguistic traditions, archetypes tap into deeper, universal patterns of meaning. For example, words like “freedom” or “love” evoke archetypal images and emotions, but their precise meanings vary between individuals, cultures, and contexts.
Words as Memory Indexes: Fritz Mauthner’s Critique of Language
Fritz Mauthner provides a sharp critique of language, describing words as “memory indexes.” According to Mauthner, words do not convey exact meanings but point to subjective associations stored in memory. Each individual’s interpretation of a word is shaped by their personal experiences, creating a divergence between what is said and what is understood.
For instance, the word “home” might evoke warmth and safety for one person while representing loss or longing for another. This concept reinforces the idea that communication is inherently imprecise and dependent on shared reference points.
Shared References, Divergent Values
Building upon Wittgenstein and Mauthner, we arrive at a central insight: while words function as shared references, the values or meanings tied to them vary between individuals. This divergence arises because each person’s internal world, shaped by their unique experiences, assigns different meanings to the same reference.
Consider the example of “freedom.” To a traveler, it might evoke the thrill of exploring new places without restrictions, while to a parent, it might mean the ability to provide opportunities for their children. The word remains a shared reference, but its value shifts based on where it points within each individual’s mind.
Ontological Words and the Role of Personal Experience
While all words serve as references, their reliance on personal experience varies depending on the type of word. Words that convey ontological values, such as “freedom,” “love,” “pain,” or “existence,” derive their meaning almost entirely from the personal experiences of the individual. These words are deeply tied to subjective realities, and their values often diverge significantly between people.
Consider the example of “success.” To an entrepreneur, it might mean building a thriving business, while to an artist, it might evoke the satisfaction of creating something meaningful. The word remains a shared reference, but its value shifts based on where it points within each individual’s mind.
In contrast, words with more concrete or practical meanings — such as “table” or “pen” — are less reliant on personal experience. Their references are tied to tangible objects that most people can identify similarly, reducing the possibility of divergence in value.
This distinction underscores why misunderstandings are more likely when discussing abstract, ontological concepts. Without shared experiences to ground these words, their references remain the same, but the values they point to are shaped by deeply personal interpretations.
The Responsibility of the Communicator
Given the inherent limitations of language, the responsibility falls on the communicator to bridge the gap between references and values. Effective communication requires:
- Understanding the Audience: Anticipating the listener’s frame of reference, cultural background, and likely interpretations.
- Choosing Common Symbols: Selecting words, analogies, and metaphors that resonate with the shared experiences or knowledge of the audience.
- Adapting for Time and Future Audiences: Ensuring that the message remains accessible and meaningful across different contexts and time periods.
The communicator must strive to use symbols and examples that evoke shared understanding, while recognizing the impossibility of perfect alignment. This responsibility extends to future audiences, requiring the communicator to predict how their message might be received in different contexts.
Analogies and Metaphors as Bridges
When words fall short, analogies and metaphors serve as powerful tools for conveying meaning. They create connections between abstract concepts and familiar experiences, allowing the listener to grasp ideas that might otherwise remain elusive.
However, the effectiveness of an analogy depends on its relevance to the audience’s shared experiences. A metaphor that resonates with one group might confuse another, emphasizing the need for the communicator to tailor their examples to the listener’s context.
Communication as an Art of Resonance
Ultimately, communication is not about achieving perfect understanding but about creating resonance. This requires the communicator to meet the listener halfway, using shared references to evoke meaning while respecting the individuality of interpretation. It is an art that demands empathy, creativity, and humility.
Conclusion
Language, as a symbolic system, is both a bridge and a barrier to understanding. While it allows us to share references, the values tied to those references remain deeply personal. Philosophers like Wittgenstein, Jung, and Mauthner illuminate the complexities of this process, emphasizing the interplay between shared symbols and individual meanings.
As communicators, our task is to navigate this complexity with care, selecting words, analogies, and metaphors that resonate with our audience. In doing so, we honor the individuality of experience while striving to create moments of shared understanding — a fragile yet beautiful connection between minds.
