Understanding words

At another dinner featuring fish specialities in a Mediterranean restaurant, with a glass of Pinot Blanc in hand, one of the four friends muses thoughtfully…

Atheist: There are so many languages in this world.

Scientist: Someone once estimated there are roughly 5,000 natural languages on our planet.

Theist: In every language, it’s always about the same thing: understanding the world, the self, and communicating with one another. In the early days of human development, communication was likely more crucial, as it was largely about survival—mutual understanding increased one’s chances of staying alive. Over time, though, it must have shifted towards understanding the self, the world, and, of course, God.

Atheist: One could also say that languages encompass everything conceivable and inconceivable. But the fact is—and I prefer to stick to facts—that every language, whether still spoken or long extinct, is ultimately a collection of words. It’s about words.

Scientist: Well, philologists have made it their business to examine words closely. They ask: how did these words come about, why, what did someone intend to express with them, and how have they evolved through history? What do they tell us about ourselves, our world, our fellow humans? And which other words do they connect with effectively? After all, every single word was invented by some human being.

Theist: We all know that dictionaries and encyclopaedias help us understand the meaning of words, and a myriad of them have developed in most spoken languages on our planet. They exist online too, of course, and through the internet, one of the largest such dictionaries has emerged, built collaboratively by inspired people worldwide. They all believe in their work, and we all benefit from it.

Atheist: I find etymology particularly fascinating as a tool of linguistics. As its name suggests, it deals with the origin of words.

Theist: It’s good to explore the meaning and origin of words, but one must be cautious. Some pursuits can lead to conclusions that aren’t quite right. That’s why, when it comes to understanding words, I believe the most important approach is to do so in community. Sharing discoveries with others and welcoming critique not only enriches one’s own thinking but also strengthens our bonds with others, and thus our sense of identity and belonging.

Atheist: I don’t always want to share everything with others. I enjoy exploring and discovering things for myself, and keeping them to myself too. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about others, but I value my privacy. Not everyone needs to know everything I think or do.

Theist: That’s perfectly fine—you don’t have to share everything. But many things only feel truly fulfilling once we’ve shared them. Truly shared, so that others receive something from us—a gift, our trust—without feeling we’re trying to manipulate them.

Scientist: Such a community would be wonderful in research, but sadly, we often have only loose alliances of tribes constantly at odds with one another. And sometimes we even fight within our own tribes. There are occasional romantic relationships between researchers, but those can go awry, both personally and professionally.

Philosopher: You three always make for splendid conversation. The world would be almost dull without good discussions.

Atheist: Haven’t you anything to add about languages and words

Philosopher: Well, as a philosopher, I consider it especially important to understand the words I use as fully as possible in their meaning and as deeply as I can in their development. If I can’t understand something, I can’t develop an appreciation for it, nor can I integrate it into my thinking. My philosophy is deeply tied to my own exploration of the various languages I speak and the cultures that produced or use them. I pay particular attention to the era of nation-building and industrialisation, which gave rise to modern national languages and schools, as well as standardised grammars, orthographies, dictionaries, and so forth. That period was a great leap forward in communication between people, but sadly not in mutual understanding, which is why, not long after, great wars broke out. Languages are not merely a code; they are intertwined with cultures, histories, emotions, and unique perspectives on the self and the world. Some cultures on our planet are utterly incompatible with one another, and you notice this when you study their languages, their idioms, and their perspectives.

Theist: Perhaps this lack of mutual understanding is why we find it so hard to form communities?

Scientist: We certainly live in a time when more and more people are multilingual, yet understanding remains a major challenge. We see this in wars and the rising number of conflicts. There’s a saying that to truly understand someone, you must walk in their shoes.

Philosopher: As for communities, I feel fortunate to be part of several good ones, both real and ideal. For instance, there have never been many philosophers in history, but I strive to see all philosophers, living or dead, as colleagues—as part of an ideal community. My colleague Wittgenstein became famous for his reflections on language, and I’ve taken one of his ideas and developed it further for myself. Would you like to hear more?

Atheist: I’ve heard of Wittgenstein.

Theist: Go on, please.

Scientist: I’m intrigued.

Philosopher: For my thought experiment, imagine a small box with a lid, containing something inside. That box is, in essence, a word, and its contents are the meaning associated with that word. Take, for example, the word “beetle,” as Wittgenstein did. If you say “beetle” to five people, each might attach a different meaning to it in their minds—different contents in their boxes labelled “beetle.” One might think of a May beetle, another a ladybird, a third a cockroach, a fourth the Volkswagen “Beetle” car, and a fifth perhaps the haircut made famous by the Beatles, called a “beetle.” If you gather more people, even more meanings might emerge. Some might not think of anything at all, just holding the word “beetle” in their mind. What does this mean, or what am I trying to express?

Theist: Perhaps that people have their own definitions for the terms they use? And that we should therefore be more patient, through love, and question what others mean before assuming we understand them?

Atheist: Probably that we don’t understand each other at all, because we each live in our own mental reality with our own words and definitions? After all, “beetle” is a fairly trivial term, but we likely face the same issues with far more significant concepts like friendship, money, politics, power, or even love.

Scientist: That’s well said. I think I now understand much better what’s going on in our lab. It likely has to do with poor communication in all areas outside our research—everywhere we don’t use our own rigorously defined scientific terms, which we refine together.

Philosopher: Hold on, you’re moving too fast. First, did you notice I never used the word “concept”? But you all did. I deliberately avoided it. Do you know why?

A brief pause for thought ensues…

Theist: I think I see it. Because “concept” is related to “conceiving” or “grasping”—taking control, holding something in your power. And that’s the opposite of how you present your philosophy of love.

Philosopher: Well done. We are humans; we should speak. We’re not birds of prey that grasp. This shows how deeply control permeates our culture, our thinking, and our actions. You put it well: bringing something “into our power.” Both our languages and our inner lives are steeped in this sense of control. We emerged from violence. I believe we don’t so much want to grasp or have concepts, but rather to understand and take an interest in words—their meaning in us and in others.

Atheist: Control is important—we can’t do without it. But I can distinguish between control and violence: control in the sense of transparency, to avoid nasty surprises, versus aggressive or violent means to gain power over others. In other words, there’s a difference between control and power.

Philosopher: Control and power. Those are two fine words we can tackle in our next conversation.

Atheist: Perhaps during our planned trip to Auschwitz?

Theist: That will be quite a conversation…

Scientist: I’ll want to prepare for that one. Scientific progress enabled much of the industrialisation of killing. Of course, it was humans who willed it.

The mood shifts, and the friends fall silent for several minutes. The Theist offers a short prayer, and the group changes the subject, talking about personal matters until the evening draws to a close.