Communicative Chaos

Argument on the basis of language usage is extremely pointless, hinders discussion and is a huge waste of time. It is irritating that people argue about how a sentence is phrased and the irrelevant tangible meanings they can draw from it. ‘One man’s joy is another’s sorrow’ makes perfect sense, owing to our genetic configuration and varying mental states. But to misinterpret this quote to the extent of saying that what one man calls hate, another calls love is despicable….

It’s the twenty first century and we’ve gotten way past our ancient grunt and growl lingo. We have over a dozen languages and dialects to help us communicate. And we need only one of those to make people understand what we mean. Language helps to standardize and define physical, emotional and mental substances no matter who is observing or experiencing them. But you must realize that language gives sound to already existing things both physical and emotional. It wasn’t language that created them. It just labels them for our convenience. How does it bring about convenience? Well, imagine you go to work one day and your boss assigns you the task of filing all his papers. Now, if you took the word filing to mean tearing, how much trouble would you have gotten yourself into? Now you realize the convenience of being on the same language stratum? So language is what gives meaning to pre-existing actions and humans have evolved to associate and relate specific phonetics (in their infinite combinations) to actions, emotions and physical objects. Language is that guideline along which all human interaction should take place. It is incorrect to say that our thoughts, actions and most importantly feelings, are limited and regulated by language.

Some people might like to think of language as authority. Authority is society and what we have been unquestionably told. Being in the 21st century much less of authority is being seen. Authority does not mold our thoughts or actions at all. People argue that it is authority that instill the emotion of love in us, and we can say we love only once we experience those feelings. That has some truth in it, but it is not authority at all that does this. It is language. Language has given a name to that rush of blood to the heart, that elevation, that momentual bliss that most of us experience. It has named it love. Now when one needs to convey that they have felt this they would only say love. If they came up to you and said ‘Hey, I just experienced confusion’ you would most definitely be confused. This is exactly why language is a convenience..

It is important to remember that the theory of knowledge deals with abstract and highly subjective ideas. This means that opinions differ from person to person and there is no such thing as a correct idea or a correct answer. So when a group of people is asked: What do you love the most? The response would be very diverse. Love is defined as deep intense affection; sexual passion; obsession and attachment towards a person or thing and everyone feels this towards something or the other. You can argue that what one man loves, another hates and if this were the case then it is language that helps straighten out this dilemma and make sure we talk about everyone’s love and no ones hate. But don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that everyone should love the very same things, as characterized by society. What I mean is that, you cannot call the feeling of love, that of hate. You cannot say you are happy when you are experiencing sorrow or grief. You have to say you are sad. Your perception of sad might differ from another’s, but that is purely individuality. Then again, you can ‘claim’ that you are happy when you really aren’t. But then that is a matter of choice.

The chaos that would follow if these matters were overlooked would be astronomical. So it is very important that we concretely define everything we talk about. Not a definition as the world sees it or the one that appears in your dictionary, but a definition that would take into consideration and be the amalgamation of everyone’s perspective of the ‘word’ (being defined) and not inhibit intellectual discussion…