Wednesday, May 21, 2014

A Language in which we may Communicate

What is the proper way to find truth?

The prominent dilemma of modern philosophies is the divide between perception and reality - a divorce of the internal and external worlds. The result is the dominance of two views: materialism and postmodernism.

Materialism says perception is capable of equating reality, but only insofar as perception is an illusion based on states in reality - mind is a function of matter. It annihilates language into the machine-response and animal-instinct which is the only "reality." Perception does not actually exist.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, says perception is itself reality, or the only knowable reality. Action is taken upon the entirely of sense-perception, but only upon that basis. Reality does not really exist - only perception.

Neither of these solutions are satisfying. They are literally "not enough." One illustration of what I mean: a language, by definition, cannot communicate unless the signifier and signified agree and are consistent among speakers. Words and the World - these two must be married in intimate fashion in order for any sort of rational society. But neither materialism or postmodernism can provide this full marriage of language and universe. Either the world makes language, or language the world - only one exists, the other is fiction and fairy-tale. This is the very language of the nihilists on both sides of this unholy duality.

So how can this problem be fixed? What view of perception and reality is rational, capable of supporting (among other things) a working language? What, in other words, is a complete language, a language that really is "about" the world?

Only a language which, instead of uncomfortably nestling these two opposites, is their mutual enemy - a language which accepts as real the person, and accepts as real the cosmos; one which marries perception and reality; so that perception is true and of a reality, and reality supports and corrects perception. When I name a thing, it is the thing itself that I name, and not merely my perception of that thing, or of things in general: the leaf I call a leaf really is a leaf, and can be discovered as such by every sense, is in essence and accident a leaf.

It is not easy to have a universe-perceiver in the universe, though - for if the person is to know the universe, the universe must also be within the person. How can the world be in the world? There must be something outside of the world in the world; this is the soul, of which the Philosopher said "man holds all things in his soul" and the wise king Solomon said "He has set eternity in their hearts."

This is the basis of the language we shall use; it is the only proper way to find truth. No other way may suffice, we have already seen what happens when the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, but is rejected by His own: it is our present, damnable condition, this fleshly perdition, which so rots society.

So when I say a leaf, I mean a leaf. This is the simplest of truths; it is called a tautology, a thing today denied in the streets. It is also called a truism. The obvious thing which is not obvious.

I have said nothing which you did not already know.

More soon eventually.

-Christian Boyd

Carthago Delenda Est