Seduced By Language

If I listen to music or speak with a friend, whatever emotion I experience is not tied to any linguistic knowledge unless I was to choose to focus on words so much that my emotions are oriented around them and my thoughts involve words. Even then, the capacity for emotion precedes the learning or construction of language, and, more significantly, the laws of logic that metaphysically permit possibilities, ground necessary truths, and epistemologically reveal all true knowledge are even more fundamental than emotion.  The construct of words, despite its total irrelevance to the truth or falsity of concepts, can affect how a person feels about something even if this is not permitted to influence their worldview.

Anyone who believes in a philosophical idea because they liked how it was communicated by a speaker, such as a churchgoer who is emotionally persuaded by a pastor or a scientist who is excited by the words of another scientist they assume must be correct, is someone who has been seduced by language to betray reason--emotion and excitement are not irrational and do not make someone forsake alignment with reason, for someone allows this to happen.  No one is involuntarily, imperceptibly forced to believe in certain ideas because of the words they have been exposed to or come up with themselves.  It is one thing to have one's emotional or other perceptions fluctuate as one uses, hears, or reads various words, but to believe in something because words made one feel a certain way is irrational (with the exception of believing one feels a certain way because of words if that is the case, and even then, this knowledge is attained because of reason).

Yes, words can make people feel a certain way or experience something differently about how they think about a concept, and yet language does not stop anyone from discovering a knowable logical truth, prevent anyone from making assumptions or ignoring truths they either know or could know, or recognizing the distinction between having one's emotional states potentially change in reaction to language and choosing to not align with reason on the level of actual belief and proof.  There is nothing irrational or petty about the former.  The latter, in contrast, is to let a social construct that can impact one's subjective emotions dictate what one believes about truths that are ultimately not dependent on either language or emotion.  Language as used by other people, one's own speech or writing, or even privately thinking in linguistic terms does not lead to emotionalism or other forms of irrationalism unless someone lets this happen.

Some might like the cultural connotation of the word or just how it makes them feel.  When understood and restrained properly, this is not something to hate, shun, or fear, in oneself or in others.  There might be certain people who do not even ever have to put direct effort into avoiding the fallacies of linguistic emotionalism.  Words have their practical usefulness for communication between non-telepathic beings (though this is connected with things far deeper than practicality) just as they have their more abstract nature, and none of the communicative, emotional, or intellectual elements of language are changed just because many people let themselves be seduced by language away from reason.  Language itself, after all, is a mental or social construct that has no deceiving mind of its own.  At most, it is emotionalistically influential because the majority of people are far from rationalism already.

As long as a person recognizes and continues to inwardly acknowledge that logical truths are are the core of reality, and that language is at most a logically possible tool for communication and at times introspection (though language cannot even be learned without self-awareness, general experience, and the grasp of reason already being present), then intentionally savoring the emotion that words can ignite is not something irrational.  It is indeed within everyone's power to understand these necessary truths and that language does not ground reason and is not in any way an epistemological requirement to know it.  The laws of logic are of the supreme, intrinsically foundational nature both metaphysically and epistemologically, so there could be nothing more fundamental than them: not God, not the universe, not the human mind, and certainly not emotion or social constructs, the latter of which includes language.