Language, Time, and Logic
Consider that there is a first layer of philosophy, pure thought, which is close to the surface of our consciousness but relatively irrelevant in day-to-day action. Consider a second layer of philosophy, deeply rooted, tied to memories and movements, close to actuality, and subconsciously related to thought and behavior. Finally, consider the actual thoughts, perceptions, and actions that make up our general lives.
Examining the first layer of philosophy, I give up trying to comprehend anything. Logic has collapsed on itself. Sometimes, I vapidly call this absurdity; other times, I joyously laugh about how ridiculous everything is. Attempting to draw any sort of original meaning from this layer of philosophy would require me to wipe my brain of memories and disable all of my senses. At which point I would gladly report to you how I felt. If I wasn't dead.
The first problem is with language. The set of all languages is uncountable. Consider the English language, comprised of symbols. There is an “alphabet” of 26 letters, along with numbers consisting of 10 digits, and a whole host of other symbols. It is quite apparent that the English “language” itself is infinite – the number of possible combinations of symbols is large indeed, given that we have a finite number of symbols, but it is countable.
Now consider a language where all of the words have had their letter a’s replaced with b’s, and the b’s replaced with a’s. Now, we have yet another language, infinite but countable. It should become apparent now that the set of all languages derivable from the English alphabet is quite large. Mathematically, this set is uncountable, and philosophically distressing. And I haven’t even considered that we could have a language where all the words are the same but everything means something completely different.
Take into consideration other “alphabets” (the Spanish alphabet or a full collection of Japanese characters), and you will quickly grasp the problem of language. Philosophically, what this suggests is that we cannot describe everything with language, because language is uncountable – unendingly infinite in all directions. The moment we develop every word for all possible languages, the set of possible languages will expand, and we have more work to do.
Now consider a language where all the words that start with “a” actually mean “water.” Consider another language where all the words that start with “a” actually means “sunlight.” It should become apparent now that the set of meanings to a particular language derivable from the English alphabet is quite large. Mathematically, this set is uncountable, and even more philosophically distressing. Add in the concept of meaning to language, and we have created another problem; we cannot permanently describe anything with language, because the set of all meanings for a language is uncountable. The moment we provide meaning for all words in a language, the set of meanings for the language will expand, and we have more work to do.
The second problem, and very related to the first, is the problem of time. As seen in the problem of language, the passage of time (which is admittedly a fickle construct of human abstraction) causes the expansion of languages and meanings. Conceptually, we may not understand anything about the past because we may not be able to describe it using languages that currently exist. As time passes, we may be able to construct languages that decode portions of the past, but we will never be able to describe all that has occurred in the past, because no language that has existed in any point in time in the past would be able to describe all that existed in that point in time. Similarly, no language that exists now can describe all that is occurring now.
This conclusion suggests that the existing “universe” (a concept that describes all that exists) is infinitely old and will continue to indefinitely grow. If we cannot describe the beginning of time completely, how can we know it exists? As a point in time, the possible meanings for the beginning of time are uncountable – that is, they exist merely within the speculation of our minds (see the final problem). If a possible meaning for the beginning of time suggests that there existed a point in time before the beginning of time, how can we know that the beginning of time exists? Similarly, if we cannot describe the end of time completely, how can we know it exists?
The problem of logic has brought us here. Not only does language and meaning provide an incomplete description of everything and anything, it also acts as a tool by which we can logically conclude that language and meaning provide both a complete and an incomplete description of everything and anything. The means by which these tools create this result, I am referring to as “logic.”
In essence, logic provides an avenue to describe everything completely. But logic suggests that we also cannot describe anything at all. Furthermore, logically being able to conclude the existence of anything means that logically, one could conclude the non-existence of anything. From a formal standpoint, logic does not suggest that we exist, nor does it suggest that we do not exist. It is clear that a purely logic-only thought process should philosophically lead us nowhere but in circles.
For simplicity, I refer to this logical breakdown as “absurdity” and consider it the first layer of my personal philosophy.
Language: We cannot describe anything we know. The set of all languages and meanings is uncountable.
Time: We cannot describe anything at all. Every conceivable point in time results in the expansion of the set of all languages and meanings, causing everything that exists, has existed, and will exist to be infinite in all directions and conceptions.
Logic: We cannot try to describe anything at all. Logic undermines itself, and it is absurd to even attempt to think coherently. It is absurd to even describe this concept.