The Construction Of Language

Knowledge of reason and one's own experiences, even if a person's grasp of them is very minimal or vague, is required for there to be any communication with others.  Without this, the very beginning of language formation and communication could never even begin.  The issue of whether knowledge precedes language or language precedes knowledge is not a difficult one to wholly resolve--at least not for rationalists who have consistently embraced the light of reason.  It is an important one to address as needed, but it is hardly a paradoxical or challenging subject in the way that some suggest it is.  The very nature of concept-word association could be no other way except in very select situations that come well after someone has started using language.

A person simply cannot construct or learn a language in the first place without already understanding at least some concepts, after all, even if they have never thoroughly contemplated them: they could not associate a word with any kind of concept, thought, emotion, sensory experience, or physical object if they had no awareness of those things prior to using language.  It would be impossible to ever get past the first step of either creating or learning any language at all if awareness of words and concepts came simultaneously or if words had to come first.  One would have to possess knowledge (on at least a conceptual level) that, according to this false idea about language, would be inaccessible beforehand.

No one could ever struggle to find the words to express a concept, thought, or experience they already understand if language was a prerequisite for knowledge!  This is an experience many people can probably relate to, and it inherently disproves the idea that language constructs core thoughts and knowledge.  That a baseline grasp of logic and conceptual awareness are utterly foundational to understanding any experience at all can be known by anyone who reflects soundly on the nature of reason and experience, but anyone who has ever had difficulty deciding how to describe or articulate a point has directly confronted this fact, even if they have never thought of the matter in this way.

There are some cases where language might help guide someone to a concept they would have otherwise overlooked or to a better understanding of a concept they had already thought of or heard from others, but, as aforementioned, this can only happen after someone is already somewhat familiar with both concepts and words.  Any attempt to pretend like the inverse is true is destined to deviate from reason and remain a backwards, impossible pursuit.  Of course, someone who does not make assumptions about language can easily avoid such errors even if they do not directly think about the issue, as only someone who makes assumptions would ever suppose that a logically impossible thing can be true.

Language is primarily useful for communication and communication only.  It is not an epistemological tool, but a communicative one, even if it might occasionally help someone come to or better grasp a given concept.  A position that mistakenly elevates language to a higher role than this accomplishes nothing more than satisfying the emotionalistic yearnings of its adherents and perpetuating their delusions.  Linguistic use is necessary for the most precise kind of communication non-telepathic beings can share, yet it is merely a social and individual construct that expresses familiar concepts.  Any appreciation of language that exceeds appreciating this truth reflects the subjectivity of one's mind rather than the nature of language itself.