[Bups-dis] language and objectivity

[Russo, Matteo]

Hi, I've had this query which I've wanted to pose to other philosophers concerning the relation between language and the notion of objectivity for quite some time, more specifically whether the latter could be a product of the former. Is it possible that language has distorted our conception of reality which is altogether distinct to what we have often assumed as philosophers? Here it is.

Is it possible that the existence of objective reality is a deception introduced by language? If one holds that beliefs require justification in order for their status to be elevated to that of knowledge, then one can generally be said to subscribe to the notion of objective reality or to the existence of a realm of justification which embodies the true essence of reality.

The role of language is intrinsically communication, a tool for the transmittance of experience, yet in language the realm of concrete experience is merged or amalgamated with the world of theoretical speculation within which lie the concepts of morality, knowledge. Therefore concepts such as these acquire the same existential status as those of immediately discernable realities. 

Language does not distinguish between 'external' experience and 'internal' experience, it serves only as a tool for communication, it does not distinguish between concrete experience caused by the world and speculative experience in terms of ideas which are internally not externally caused.

If we conceive of reality as singular, it seems to be the case that language is creating a division by referring to truth or justification as something which precedes our knowledge claims, as something necessary for our knowledge claims to be justified. By making truth the object of pursuit, as opposed to situating it in the same realm as the one we exist in, language creates the misconception that knowledge lies beyond our realm or beneath or within it, every philosophy which has contained the notion of objective reality has sought 'reality' out in this way. It is not that knowledge does not exist, it's just that it may not exist in a transcendental sense but merely in a relative context based sense and grounded in our reality not another superior one.

Another consequence of conceiving of reality as being singular is that every object or concept which emerges from it is reality because everything forms part of reality. Although a concept might not reflect reality the concept itself is still part of it, for example, Plato's theory of the forms was wrong in itself yet it is still a product of reality.Yet the claim that my view more accurately depicts reality intuitively presupposes a reality, which therefore either justifies or rebukes beliefs. However, my conception of reality is that it is singular, everything forms part of it, there is no division between the realm of belief and knowledge. Look at what I've said, a wrong belief that still forms part of reality, that is, a wrong belief that is still true, there is a different notion of truth at work here, I am apparently suggesting a kind of contradictory relativity but in reality I am recognising that objectivity as it is defined does not exist, reality is mutable therein lies the deception of language in that truth is understood, it is defined, as an immutable fixed entity which embodies a realm of perfection. If reality is singular and all-encompassing, which means everything is a part of it, it follows that reality is an ongoing process, there are new facets emerging every instant, every instant both physical and conceptual entities come into existence while others revert back to their original form. Therefore reality is not fixed, it is mutable, it has unity only as a word, it is characterised in a sense by something which contradicts its meaning, truth is meant by definition to be fixed yet in reality it is indefinable, but that's the problem with language. 

Please post any responses, thank you,

Matteo Russo