The Relativity Of Language

Perfect verbal or written communication from one human to another is impossible.  This is not because we cannot understand anything fully (we can understand some concepts perfectly), but because of the nature of human language.  Language is malleable.  It is relative.  It is arbitrary.  And because of these things, and our epistemological limitations, we can never fully know what other people mean by their words: "While all the concepts behind words exist objectively and without reference to any particular society (a tree is a tree no matter what cultural word is used for it), language itself is purely defined by individuals and culture [1]."

In different disciplinary settings words can invoke different concepts.  Since I am a business management major I will use an example relating to business.  The word "technology" in a layperson sense usually refers to some sort of human-made machinery or electronics, whereas in a business context it refers to anything that converts inputs (raw materials) into outputs (finished goods).  Likewise, while some people might mean by the word "science" any generic or specific discipline of knowledge, scientists mean by the word a strict system of inquiry and verification pertaining to the scientific method (not that the scientific method can truly verify almost anything!).  The intended meanings of words change with culture, time, and context.

Other than the language God used to speak the universe into existence, if Christianity or something similar is true, no language is anything but an arbitrary human system.  The words we use are constructs.  Perhaps paradoxically, this does not prevent humans from using various languages to communicate concepts.  Language still works on one level--or at least it can work.  I still have and can have precise, fulfilling, and engaging conversations with people; I just cannot know with absolute certainty what they mean by certain words, only what I mean or don't mean by them.  My own meanings remain directly known to me.  I can know exactly what I mean via immediate awareness of my mind, but I must resort to probabilism when conversing with someone else and estimating their meanings.

This does not in any way mean that literature or spoken words have no objective meaning.  The meaning of a text is whatever the author intended.  It may be impossible in some circumstances to even construct a consistent evidential case for a particular claim of authorial intent, but the author of a work still had some intention in mind.  No, the relativity of language does not negate the provable facts that concepts themselves are objective and that those who use written or verbal words have some meaning behind them, even if only an arbitrary one.  Words, other than the ones in the divine language utilized by God during creation, have no inherent meaning, but people who use them do indeed objectively mean certain things by them.

Human words are ultimately nothing more than tools used to communicate concepts, to be discarded and modified as needed for that task.  When I talk with others my goal is for those I am speaking with to understand the concepts.  The words are mere vehicles; the passengers are what matters.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html