Linguistic Nihilism
I define Linguistic Nihilism as the position that ...
1. There's a problem: All languages fail in re the purpose languages are assigned (thinking, communicating, etc.)
2. The problem is unsolvable: It's impossible to reduce/eliminate the aforementioned flaw.
3. The unsolvable problem worsens: Over time and with usage, the aforementioned flaw spirals out of control (we always end up worse than we stared)
[EDIT: @Jamal]
4. Inverse consequence effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. :wink:
Conclusion
5. Linguistic Catastrophe: All languages will deteriorate into utter gibberish [From 1, 2, 3, 4]
What sayest thou?
1. There's a problem: All languages fail in re the purpose languages are assigned (thinking, communicating, etc.)
2. The problem is unsolvable: It's impossible to reduce/eliminate the aforementioned flaw.
3. The unsolvable problem worsens: Over time and with usage, the aforementioned flaw spirals out of control (we always end up worse than we stared)
[EDIT: @Jamal]
4. Inverse consequence effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. :wink:
Conclusion
5. Linguistic Catastrophe: All languages will deteriorate into utter gibberish [From 1, 2, 3, 4]
What sayest thou?
Comments (10)
Sometimes, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, Agent Smith.
What about languages such as binary?
It solves what it solves and it fails where it fails.
I've memories of perusing my university's philosophy section, which lead me to conclude that philosophy is that free domain of language transformation which can approach gibberish. Linguistic catastrophe is definitely most relevant to philosophers.
What's the argument for saying language has a "purpose"? One is pre-supposing that there is such a "purpose".
We have it now, so in retrospect we put assign it such a thing. But I think one of the ways to frame your main point is to argue that we don't have full definitions - outside mathematics.
Sure, no single word is exhausted by our trying to explain it. But if we attempt to be clear in what we are arguing for - then in need to dissolve into gibberish. We just have to face the fact that there are things we have that we cannot explain to our satisfaction, such as us having full definitions.
Fuck off, frankly.
Numbering claims does not make them more tenable, and giving a random hypothesis a fancy name does not add to its credibility. Start speaking more responsibly and with more care, and language will magically heal itself.