Linguistic Nihilism

[Agent Smith]

Language has always been viewed in a good light, it's sold to us as one of the jewels in the crown of human superpowers, the other related ability being rationality.

I would have to agree that language has opened doors for us if only by giving us control over information (storing, transmitting, refining). I, we, owe a great debt to language and those who can use it effectively. At this point in human history, I'd say language is a sine qua non for human survival and progress.

That said, despite the thousands of years language has had to evolve towards perfection, this has not happened. In fact an opposite trend can be seen - there are thousands of mutually uintelligible languages and even within a language, effective communication rarely occurs. In short language is defective.

Given this is so, there's room enough for linguistic nihilism.

Linguistic nihilism

1. Problem: Language has flaws (vide supra)

2. Problem is unsolvable: We can only use language to correct language. That's impossible. A flawed tool always means a flawed product.

3. Problem aggravates: Flaws (in language) interact with each other and over time, produce more flaws.

4. Boomerang effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. An effect of 3 - the flaws multiply and language deteriorates with each attempt to correct it.


Therefore.

5. Linguistic catastrophe: Language will eventually become gibberish.

A penny for your thoughts ...

[attofishpi]

Language has always been viewed in a good light, it's sold to us as one of the jewels in the crown of human superpowers, the other related ability being rationality.

I would have to agree that language has opened doors for us if only by giving us control over information (storing, transmitting, refining). I, we, owe a great debt to language and those who can use it effectively. At this point in human history, I'd say language is a sine qua non for human survival and progress.

That said, despite the thousands of years language has had to evolve towards perfection, this has not happened. In fact an opposite trend can be seen - there are thousands of mutually uintelligible languages and even within a language, effective communication is rarely occurs. In short language is defective.

Given this is so, there's room enough for linguistic nihilism.

Linguistic nihilism

1. Problem: Language is flawed (vide supra)

No. Language has flaws.

2. Problem is unsolvable: We can only use language to correct language. That's impossible. A flawed tool always means a flawed product.

Language is in a constant state of improvement, where improvements are required.

3. Problem aggravates: Flaws (in language) interact with each other and over time, produce more flaws.

No. You appear to be seeing language as incapable of intelligent improvement (by intelligent, communicating sentient beings - humans.)

4. Boomerang effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. An effect of 3 - the flaws multiply and language deteriorates with each attempt to correct it.

IF this was the case, we would NOT be in the current state right here right now of having this conversation. Point 4 is suggesting devolution of language, English is a prime example of the reverse of this - people from extremely diverse backgrounds and cultures can communicate in this default language of the planet.

Therefore.

5. Linguistic catastrophe: Language will eventually become gibberish.

A penny for your thoughts ...

The way you are analysing flaws as "flawed", you are being irrational and so may as well be talking gibberish.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

[Agent Smith]

No. Language has flaws.

Corrected! Danke!

Language is in a constant state of improvement, where improvements are required.

I consider linguistic fragmentation (different peoples with different languages) as evidence of the opposite, deterioration of the situation. Language is meant for communcation and multiple languages is an impediment to that cause.

No. You appear to be seeing language as incapable of intelligent improvement (by intelligent, communicating sentient beings - humans.)

If I gave you a broken weighing machine, will it be able to measure it's own correct weight?

IF this was the case, we would NOT be in the current state right here right now of having this conversation. Point 4 is suggesting devolution of language, English is a prime example of the reverse of this - people from extremely diverse backgrounds and cultures can communicate in this default language of the planet.

This conversation, though an interesting one, isn't exactly what a linguist would describe as good/effective communication.

The way you are analysing flaws as "flawed", you are being irrational and so may as well be talking gibberish.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

The flaws will multiply and problems usually start small until they snowball into a major disaster. This is exactly what I predict will happen to language.

[attofishpi]

Language is in a constant state of improvement, where improvements are required.

I consider linguistic fragmentation (different peoples with different languages) as evidence of the opposite, deterioration of the situation. Language is meant for communcation and multiple languages is an impediment to that cause.

But the diversity of languages is actually reducing. Native speaking people from many indiginous backgrounds are desperately trying to hold on to their languages around the world. And as I stated below, English is the common default single language that you appear to require to defeat your premise!

No. You appear to be seeing language as incapable of intelligent improvement (by intelligent, communicating sentient beings - humans.)

If I gave you a broken weighing machine, will it be able to measure it's own correct weight?

Of course it would, it was only the power LED that was faulty (I know what you are attempting to get at, but it is a daft analogy).

IF this was the case, we would NOT be in the current state right here right now of having this conversation. Point 4 is suggesting devolution of language, English is a prime example of the reverse of this - people from extremely diverse backgrounds and cultures can communicate in this default language of the planet.

This conversation, though an interesting one, isn't exactly what a linguist would describe as good/effective communication.

I don't know any, and being the arsehole that I am I'd probably call them a wanker. But anyway, get two linguists to have this debate and see how you would feel the 'effective level of communication' to address your concerns are improved, I wouldn't doubt there would be improvement, but I don't think either would have the right to state that us mere nitwits are not being effective in our current communication.

The way you are analysing flaws as "flawed", you are being irrational and so may as well be talking gibberish.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

The flaws will multiply and problems usually start small until they snowball into a major disaster. This is exactly what I predict will happen to language.

The flaws in the extreme example I provided here would only multiply if US populous permits that neighbourhood level of society to become the overarching dominating 'culture' of US society. Now, I know the US has some bloody idiotic elements to a fair proportion of its society, but do you think the boy from the hood, LCoolDick is likely to be a future president? Surely the film Idiocracy is not actually a documetary after all!

[Iwannaplato]

Linguistic nihilism

1. Problem: Language has flaws (vide supra)

2. Problem is unsolvable: We can only use language to correct language. That's impossible. A flawed tool always means a flawed product.

I think it would be better to word this: Language use will be a part of any process to remove these flaws. There might be other things involved. If we are dealing with semantic flaws, we might, for example check out the qualities of things.

3. Problem aggravates: Flaws (in language) interact with each other and over time, produce more flaws.

But other communication in language removes flaws or misundertandings. So, we need some empirical research to see if the total is getting worse. And probably some philosophical work to determine what is a flaw.

4. Boomerang effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. An effect of 3 - the flaws multiply and language deteriorates with each attempt to correct it.

This we can see counterexamples to, even in our personal lives. Hey, honey I don't like it when you call me a f----. Honey, I said you were my luck. Oh, sweet.
As we learn languages we move from regular flaws (and gaps and silence) to less flaws. Nearly all of us.
Pretty much every field of endeavor has processes, with varying degrees of effectiveness, to deal with potential and noticed flaws in communication. There is widespread consensus that improvements can be made in those fields if X and Y are done.

Therefore.

5. Linguistic catastrophe: Language will eventually become gibberish.

So, I don't see this happening. And isn't every tool flawed. Not geometrically circular, subject to erosion, at some level or degree not completely evenly dense, strong etc. - here thinking of physical tools. Only ideal Platonic tools of any kind lack flaws. So, yes, problems and not quite perfection must arises and since any process of fixing with use tools that have flaws....

But actually it does not lead to chaos. It's not the flaws in the tools, it's the effects we don't give a shit about that may be our downfall.

We can't be perfect in communication but it doesn't have to have some schismogenic collapse.

[Impenitent]

language doesn't have flaws

interpreters of language misinterpret what was said or written

that which is meant to be communicated can never truly be perfectly expressed

damn it

-Imp

[attofishpi]

The way you are analysing flaws as "flawed", you are being irrational and so may as well be talking gibberish.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

The flaws will multiply and problems usually start small until they snowball into a major disaster. This is exactly what I predict will happen to language.

The flaws in the extreme example I provided here would only multiply if US populous permits that neighbourhood level of society to become the overarching dominating 'culture' of US society. Now, I know the US has some bloody idiotic elements to a fair proportion of its society, but do you think the boy from the hood, LCoolDick is likely to be a future president? Surely the film Idiocracy is not actually a documetary after all!

Now take how this pastey 'white' bloke talks for example (I can only assume he lives in these neighbourhoods) - take note in the way this chap talks, he has not much value for the spelling, but more for inflicting us with tonal inflections (important in his society)..
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35257&start=420

(His name is Promethean75)

[bobmax]

A perfect language would all the more lead to nihilism.

Because nihilism is inherent in rational thought and therefore in the words of language.

The defectiveness of language is therefore necessary.
Because it is precisely the effort to improve language that saves us from nihilism.

But if the language were perfect... we would be lost.

Yes, there is also the risk of total relativism, and therefore nihilism, due to the increase in the defectiveness of language.

We have to stay in the middle. With our faith in the Truth.

[Trajk Logik]

Linguistic nihilism

1. Problem: Language has flaws (vide supra)

2. Problem is unsolvable: We can only use language to correct language. That's impossible. A flawed tool always means a flawed product.

3. Problem aggravates: Flaws (in language) interact with each other and over time, produce more flaws.

4. Boomerang effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. An effect of 3 - the flaws multiply and language deteriorates with each attempt to correct it.


Therefore.

5. Linguistic catastrophe: Language will eventually become gibberish.

A penny for your thoughts ...

No. Language has flaws.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

language doesn't have flaws

interpreters of language misinterpret what was said or written

that which is meant to be communicated can never truly be perfectly expressed

damn it

-Imp

Exactly. How exactly is language flawed (examples please) as opposed to people misusing language? If one did not get their point across, then did they misuse language, or is the language flawed?

Language is a tool, and like any other tool, can be misused. A hammer is a tool and it's design hasn't changed much since it's invention. If you hit your thumb with the hammer while driving a nail, does that mean the hammer is flawed, or you misused the hammer?

Certain groups have not "devolved" the English language. They merely co-opted it for their own uses, no different than how a group of friends might use language as an inside joke that only they get the gist of. Using languages in certain ways to create barriers to others that don't know the lingo can be useful (secret codes, etc.).

[iambiguous]

How about this: we'll need a context.

An experience that we have had or an experience we have read about in the newspaper that others have had.

Then we explore the extent to which the words we use either do or do not encompass objectively the manner in which they are used to describe or evaluate or judge the world we live in.

For example...

"Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia". Linguistic nihilism here?
"Vladimir Putin's justification for invading Ukraine is both rational and virtuous". Linguistic nihilism here?

[attofishpi]

Linguistic nihilism

1. Problem: Language has flaws (vide supra)

2. Problem is unsolvable: We can only use language to correct language. That's impossible. A flawed tool always means a flawed product.

3. Problem aggravates: Flaws (in language) interact with each other and over time, produce more flaws.

4. Boomerang effect: Attempts to solve the problem makes it worse. An effect of 3 - the flaws multiply and language deteriorates with each attempt to correct it.


Therefore.

5. Linguistic catastrophe: Language will eventually become gibberish.

A penny for your thoughts ...

No. Language has flaws.

However. When I watch US crime - generally cops invading 'black' peoples homes I am amazed at how utterly devolved the beautiful language has become - in their neck of the woods - the reason - because their worth as intelligent productive people in US society has been nearly obliterated and these people have only been taught delinquency rather than the value of good communication skills - it simply has little to no value where their lives are concerned, in their neighbourhoods, fewer words with less socially innapropriate connotations where 'the law' might pick up on their very often nefarious criminal activity is best communication protocol for them. Very very sad, they generally sound like extremely stupid people, and the cycle of the collapse of language, with some evolution will continue so long as delinquency is not dealt with, erased.

language doesn't have flaws

interpreters of language misinterpret what was said or written

that which is meant to be communicated can never truly be perfectly expressed

damn it

-Imp

Exactly. How exactly is language flawed (examples please) as opposed to people misusing language? If one did not get their point across, then did they misuse language, or is the language flawed?

Like I have been saying, it has FLAWS, it is not what the OP wants, that it is FLAWED.

If language didn't have FLAWS, it would be PERFECT...that it ain't!!

Certain groups have not "devolved" the English language. They merely co-opted it for their own uses, no different than how a group of friends might use language as an inside joke that only they get the gist of. Using languages in certain ways to create barriers to others that don't know the lingo can be useful (secret codes, etc.).

I disagree, by "devolved" I mean the ability to communicate effectively is DECLINING, is gaining more FLAWS.

The wo/man that can communicate effectively with the widest spectrum of people from any culture is the person with least language FLAWS.

[Impenitent]

... If you hit your thumb with the hammer while driving a nail, does that mean the hammer is flawed, or you misused the hammer?

some hammers hit nails

some hammers hit thumb nails

be very careful of which type of hammer you choose...

some peens are terrified

-Imp

[Agent Smith]

Muchas gracias for the replies guys 'n' gals.

1. If linguistic nihilism is not true then communication should be effective.
2. Communication is not effective.
Ergo,
3. Linguistic nihilism is true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Muchas gracias for the replies guys 'n' gals.

1. If linguistic nihilism is not true then communication should be effective.
2. Communication is not effective.
Ergo,
3. Linguistic nihilism is true.

To ensure survival of the individual[s], groups and humanity, communication is critical.

• Communication is usually defined as the transmission of information.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

• Communication can be classified based on whether information is exchanged between humans, members of other species, or non-living entities such as computers. For human communication, an important distinction is between verbal and non-verbal communication.
  Verbal communication involves the exchange of messages in linguistic form.
  Verbal communication refers to the exchange of messages in linguistic form or by means of language.
  Ibid:

Regardless of how you measure whether language is effective for humanity's communication thus survival, language is the optimal best at present.
If we get rid of languages, because of language nihilism, what better alternatives do we have for communication to facilitate survival?

If we don't have any better alternative, all we need to do is to improve on our current competence is the use of language.
As stated by others, it is evident there are loads of progress since verbal language first appear within humanity, so we just continue to improve on it, until there are better alternatives to language [I don't think there will be within the next 500 years].

[Agent Smith]

Muchas gracias for the replies guys 'n' gals.

1. If linguistic nihilism is not true then communication should be effective.
2. Communication is not effective.
Ergo,
3. Linguistic nihilism is true.

To ensure survival of the individual[s], groups and humanity, communication is critical.

• Communication is usually defined as the transmission of information.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

• Communication can be classified based on whether information is exchanged between humans, members of other species, or non-living entities such as computers. For human communication, an important distinction is between verbal and non-verbal communication.
  Verbal communication involves the exchange of messages in linguistic form.
  Verbal communication refers to the exchange of messages in linguistic form or by means of language.
  Ibid:

Regardless of how you measure whether language is effective for humanity's communication thus survival, language is the optimal best at present.
If we get rid of languages, because of language nihilism, what better alternatives do we have for communication to facilitate survival?

If we don't have any better alternative, all we need to do is to improve on our current competence is the use of language.
As stated by others, it is evident there are loads of progress since verbal language first appear within humanity, so we just continue to improve on it, until there are better alternatives to language [I don't think there will be within the next 500 years].

If I don't speak, you won't understand and if I do speak, you'll misunderstand. This is the dilemma of language.