An argument is a proof and a paradox. It says, if A then B, and if B then C, and so if A then C. The proof is a succession of A, B, C. But an argument is a paradox because it is a circle that does not close. It does not close because language is a self-suspended system. It relies on itself to justify itself.
Language is a closed system. It creates Rationality by agreeing with itself. It is a system that depends wholly on itself to make sense. It has no outer reference that validates it in the way that, for example, a person can refer to another person to validate their story. There is no point where language becomes real. There is no point where language and reality become the same thing. Another way to look at it is that language is a system of tools to create agreements between people. The only way that language can be validated is when people act according to what they say they will do or when life occurs in the way described by language.
People presume that language can define Reality, but it can't because language is merely a possibility for rationality. It is not rational in itself. It can create systems of rationality but it does not, as a whole, agree with itself. If you attempt to define reality there will always be a loophole, and that loophole is some other argument that contradicts your argument. People question reality when they see this loophole because they presume that language has a one-to-one relationship with reality, but reality includes sense as well as language. It includes sensory experience as well as linguistic experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment