Aristotle proposed a classic definition of human nature, according to which human beings are creatures with logos. This definition has become a norm in Western traditions. It formalizes that human beings are rational animals, rational beings, and distinguishable from all other animals by their ability to think. So it borrows the word of the ancient Greek logos to express reason or thought. But in fact the original meaning of the word is language. Aristotle has elucidated the difference between humans and animals in that: animals can understand each other through hints, and they suggest to the other party something that can arouse their desires in order to get it; the hints will hurt them. Something to escape. This is in terms of their instinct. Only people not only have instinct but also a given logo, which allows them to express what is useful and what is harmful and to determine which is right and what is wrong. This is a profound proposition. Useful and harmful are not attractive on their own. It attracts people because of other things that are not given, and getting it will help people. Therefore, the remarkable feature of man is that his advantage to the current situation lies in people’s awareness of the future. Aristotle also said that – according to this, the correct and wrong consciousness is also given – this is because the person as an individual has logos. He can think and speak. He can speak to the things that are not in front of him so that others in front of him can understand it. He can convey everything he is referring to. It doesn’t even stop there. It is the fact that people can talk in this way, so that only people have a common meaning, that is, common ideas, especially those that can make people live together without murder and slaughter – in social life. Form is the organized division of labor between the political system and labor. All of this is contained in a simple assertion: it is the existence of a language.
It may be argued that this apparent and convincing observation long ago guaranteed the privileged position of language when we thought about human nature. Animal language – if people are willing to grant this name in a way that he can understand – is completely different from the language humans use to think and convey the world. What else can be more convincing than this fact? Indeed, the symbols used in human language are not as strict as the expression symbols of animals, they can be changed, not only in the sense that there are different languages, but the same expression in the same language can refer to different things, The same is true in the sense that different expressions can refer to the same thing.
However, in fact, Western philosophical thought did not put the nature of language in the center of its thinking. What is really important is in the story of the creation of the Old Testament. God grants him the right to rule the world by allowing the first person to arbitrarily give name to all beings. The biblical story “Unfinished Tower of Heaven” also points to the fundamental meaning of language for human life. However, it is the religious tradition of the number of Western Christians that hinders serious thinking about language, so that only in the Age of Enlightenment can the question of the origin of language be presented in new ways. Significant progress has been made when people seek answers to the question of the origin of language in the nature of humanity rather than in the creation stories of the Bible. Because the subsequent development is inevitable: the natural state of language determines that it is no longer possible to inquire about the original conditions when humans have no language. So the real question about the origin of language has been completely eliminated. Helder and William von Humboldt discovered that language is essentially human language, and that human beings are essentially a language being, and they recognize the fundamental meaning of this insight to the human worldview. The diversity of human language structure is the research field of Humboldt. He was once a Minister of Culture in public life and an erudite person in Tegel. His past writings made him the founder of modern language science.
However, the language philosophy and language science discovered by Humboldt did not restore Aristotle’s original insights. By using national language as a survey target, Humboldt pursues a path of knowledge: in a new, promising way, both clarifying the diversity of nations and times, and clarifying the diversity of the general human nature that underpins them all. But this program only gives people the ability and the structural rules that explain this ability—which we call the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the language—that limits the scope of human and linguistic problems. The purpose of this research method is to understand the world views of different nationalities and even the details of their cultural development through the mirror of language. An example of this research method is the insight into the cultural status of the Indo-European languages, thanks to Wickedhan’s excellent research on cultivated crops and livestock. Linguistic science is more about prehistory of the human spirit than other prehistoric studies.
However, as far as this research method is concerned, the meaning of linguistic phenomena lies only in an excellent form of expression in which we can study human nature and its historical development. But it is impossible to penetrate into the center of philosophical thinking, because Descartes continues to provide a context for all modern thoughts as a feature of self-consciousness. As far as I know, this unshakable foundation of all certainty—that is, the most deterministic fact of all facts—has become the standard of everything that can satisfy the requirements of scientific knowledge in modern thought. Ultimately, the scientific examination of language is based on the same foundation. The spontaneity of the subject has one of the basic forms of language composition. At the same time, the world view that appears in the language can be so thought-provoking and the mysterious language is simply gone. Because language has a completely unfathomable self-consciousness in terms of its breadth, which is part of the nature of language, the recent development of the use of the concept of “language” is not accidental. The word logos not only means language and thought, but also concepts and rules. The emergence of the concept of “language” presupposes awareness of language. The awareness of language only reflects the result of the movement. In this movement, the thinker’s thinking is based on the unconscious operation of speech, and the awareness of language is also far from the thinker’s own. The real mystery of language, however, is that we must not really do this completely. Instead, all thinking about language is always going back to the language. We can only think in the language, and it is this kind of thinking that lives in the language is the extremely esoteric mystery of language expression to thought.
Language is not one of the means by which consciousness is coordinated with the world. It does not represent a third means of juxtaposition with symbols and tools. Of course, symbols and tools are also obvious human symbols and tools. Language is by no means simply a means and a tool. Because it is based on the nature of the tool, we have mastered its use, that is, when it works, we pick it up and put it aside. This is different from the way we put them in the language when we use the words in the language, and as they are used, they are re-engaged in the general vocabulary we are dealing with. Such an analogy does not magnify the truth, because we have never found ourselves as consciousness as opposed to the world, so we will not understand the control behind the tool under silent conditions. On the contrary, in all our knowledge about ourselves and the world, we are always surrounded by ourselves—that is, our own language. We grew up in our study speech, in which we met people and eventually met ourselves. Learning to speak does not mean learning to use a pre-existing tool to indicate a world that is already familiar to us. It means familiarizing and understanding the world itself and how it confronts us.
It is a far-reaching and inscrutable process that has been hidden. It is stupid to say that the child says the “first” word. It is arrogant and ignorant to let children grow up in an environment free from human language and then recognize the actual human language from its earliest clear screams and respect it as the creation of the “primitive” language. This idea is stupid because they want to temporarily stop the atmosphere of the language world in which we live in an unnatural way. In fact, just as we have long been familiar with the world, we are already familiar with the language. Aristotle is the most extensive depiction of the process of learning to speak. Aristotle wants to portray not to learn to speak but to think; to seek universal concepts. In a series of superficial phenomena, how does the eternal thing happen in the impression of constant change like a flood? Indeed, the ability to maintain is first of all memory, it is that it makes us recognize that something is the same, it is the first great achievement in the field of abstraction. Common causes in a range of external phenomena are everywhere.
Therefore, through the accumulation of what we call experience, the unified experience has gradually emerged. The general concept of knowledge is developed by the ability to deal with what is going on. Aristotle asked: How exactly does this general concept of knowledge happen? Of course, this does not happen in such a way that things appear one after another. When a certain feature is reproduced and recognized as the same characteristic, the general concept knowledge is suddenly obtained. This characteristic cannot be distinguished from all other characteristics by some mysterious power that represents a general concept. Instead, it is the same as other features. And in a sense, general conceptual knowledge does happen. But where did it start? In this regard, Aristotle made an ideal portrayal: How can the army that is escaping stop again? Certainly not because of the fact that the first person or the second or third person stopped. We can’t say that the army stopped when a certain number of routing soldiers stopped running. Of course, it cannot be said that the army stopped when the last one stopped. Because the army did not stop because of him, but it has stopped to stop a long time ago. How does it begin and spread, and how the military finally stops at a certain point (that is, how to begin to obey the unified command again) is not specifically defined or controlled by the plan, or is precisely known to anyone. However, it happened without a doubt. General concept knowledge happens in this way, because it is no different from the way a general concept enters a language.
We are always inclined to think and understand in the language of the world. In-depth interpretation of this language means growth and development in the world. To this extent, language is the true sign of our boundaries. It is always beyond us. Personal consciousness is not a standard for measuring the existence of a language. In fact, there is no personal consciousness in which the spoken language appears. So how does language exist? Of course, it does not exist outside of personal consciousness, but it does not exist within the simple sum of many individuals who have a special awareness of themselves.
No one will really realize that he is talking when he speaks. Only in special circumstances can a person realize the language he speaks. For example, when a person starts to say something, he is a little hesitant, because what he wants to say seems a bit strange or strange. He wants to know: Can people really say that? At this moment, the language we speak became conscious because it did not produce anything special to it. What is something special about it? I think we can distinguish between three situations.
1. The first is the self-forgotten nature of the language. The structure, grammar, and syntax of language—all of which make science a name factor—has no awareness of living words. Therefore, one of the special anomalous behaviors of nature necessary for modern education is that we teach grammar and syntax in our own native language, rather than in a language that is already dead like Latin. A truly huge abstraction requires everyone to have a clear-cut awareness of the grammar of their native language. The practical use of language causes the grammar to completely disappear after what is said in this application at any given time. When learning a foreign language, each of us is aware of this phenomenon, which is used in the textbooks and language courses. Its mission is to make people understand the special language phenomenon in an abstract way. Earlier, when the task of concentrating on a language’s grammar and syntactic learning was recognized, these sentences could only claim that Caesar or Uncle Carl was arrogant and meaningless. The modern tendency to convey a large amount of foreign anecdotes through this kind of sentence has unintended side effects, which makes the paradigm role of the sentence so insignificant that only the content of the story attracts people’s attention. The more a language is a living application process, the harder we are to realize it. Because of the self-forgetting nature of language, it truly exists in what it says. What is said in the language constitutes the common world of our lives, and all the great traditional chains belong to this common world; these chains come from the living and dead foreign language literature and affect us. The real existence of language is “it says it”, and when we hear it, it is brought into the language.
2. In my opinion, the second fundamental nature of language existence is its selflessness. Whoever says the language that others can’t understand is not said. Saying means speaking to someone. The word should be the correct word. However, this does not simply mean that it represents the goal I am referring to. Instead, it puts it in front of the other person who talks to me.
From this point of view, speaking does not belong to the field of “I”, but to the field of “us”. Therefore, Ferdinand Ebner correctly gave his subtitle “The Reality of Words and Spirits” a subtitle: fragments of the Holy Spirit. Because the spiritual reality of language is the spiritual reality that makes me and you a soul. It has long been noted that the reality of speech is included in the dialogue. But the spirit of dominance in every conversation is either bad or good; or stubborn and hesitant, or between you and me.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the form of each conversation can be described in terms of game concepts. It is of course necessary to get rid of the traditional thinking mode of considering the nature of the game from the perspective of the player’s consciousness. Mainly because Schiller began to popularize the definition of the player, only grasping the real structure of the game on the subjective appearance. In reality, however, the game is an active process that includes many players or various games. Because when we talk about “wave games” or “performance is fast” or when we talk about “freedom to play a role,” it is more than just a metaphor. In fact, for the sense of dry performance, the root of the true charm of the game is precisely to introduce it into the movement with its own initiative. When a single player takes seriously, that is, when he no longer quits the game like a person who just wants to play without taking the game as a serious thing, the game can proceed. We refer to those who cannot do this as those who do not play games. Now I insist that the game is full of its spirit – the joy of joy, freedom and success, and the basic structure of the spirit that fills the game with the language. The structure of the dialogue in reality is structurally related. Associated. When a person begins a conversation with another person, he will step down and step by step under the impetus of the dialogue. At that time, the individual will no longer be able to withdraw the dialogue or make it deeper. The individual will no longer be decisive. The role. Rather, the rule of this topic is the inconsistency in the dialogue, which leads to statements and corresponding statements, and finally makes them infiltrate each other. So as we said, when the dialogue is successful, people are satisfied. The game of presentations and corresponding statements is further carried out in spirit and in its own internal dialogue, just as Plato is extremely brilliantly speculating about thought.
3. The third feature can be called the universality of language. Language does not act as a definable kingdom, but against other unspeakable kingdoms. On the contrary, language is all-encompassing. Within the limits of what our meaningful activities mean, nothing can be fundamentally excluded from being said. Our ability to speak is consistently in keeping with the universality of reason. So every conversation has an intrinsic infinite range without an end. The reason people interrupt the conversation is because it seems to have been said to be sufficient, and because there is nothing more to say. But each such interruption is intrinsically linked to the recovery of the dialogue.
When we ask for a statement, we will experience this and often experience it painfully. We can take the quality and statement in court as an extreme example. What we have to answer in this case is like a barrier set before the soul that is said. This kind of soul is eager to express that he is eager to engage in dialogue. (“I would like to say it here.” or “Answer my question!”) The thing that is said is not simply that it has its own truth within itself. Its truth is that the ones involved before and after are not said. s things. Every assertion is purposeful, that is, people can reasonably ask everything that is said: “Why do you say that?” and this assertion is understandable only if it is not understood that it can be understood as it is said. In this phenomenon of doubt, we are especially familiar with this fact. A question that we don’t think is a clear purpose, and we won’t find the answer. Because the motivational background of a problem first opens up the realm that can be obtained or given an answer. Therefore, there is actually a never-ending dialogue that constantly asks and gives answers, and words and answers exist in it, and everything that is said exists in it. We can explain this idea through the experience that each of us has had. What I want is to translate and read the translation. There is a language in front of the translator, that is, something that is spoken or written, and he must translate it into his own language. What is said in the article is the bondage of the translator, but he must turn himself into a person who speaks these words in order to turn what he says in a foreign language into what he says in his own language. However, this means that he must acquire an infinite space that is consistent with what is said in a foreign language. Everyone knows how difficult it is. Everyone knows how flat it is to translate what is said in a foreign language. It is expressed at the same level, so that the meaning and sentence pattern of the translation follow the original text, but the translation has no space. It lacks the third aspect of establishing the original text (that is, the original text) within the scope of meaning change, which is an inevitable obstacle to all translations. There is no translation that can replace the original text. One might argue that the original text has become plain and unobtrusive in the translation, so it should be easier to understand, because the heuristic background material in the original text and the content between the lines are almost in the translation. It is considered to be understandable by narrowing down the translation to a simple meaning. But this argument is wrong. No translation can be understood as the original text. It is clear that the broadest meaning of what is said – meaning is always a range of meaning – is expressed only in the original language, but slips away in all subsequent words. Therefore, the translator’s task should never be to copy what is said, but to put himself within the scope of what is said (that is, in its meaning) so that what is to be said is in its own language. Continue inside.
This problem is most clearly understood in translations that allow translators of different languages to interpret through interpreters. Translations that only copy words and sentences from people who speak another language can make the conversation difficult to understand. What he has to translate is not something that is exactly said, but something that others want to say and many that are not. The limitations of his copying must reach such a space, and only in this space, dialogue becomes possible, that is, the inherent infinity of all common understanding.
So if we only look at the language from the domain full of language itself, we look at it from the realm of human coexistence, from the common understanding and the complementary common agreement—from a world of human life like our breathing The indispensable field to understand its words, then language is the real medium of human existence, as Aristotle said, people do have the existence of language. Because we should let everything human beings say to us.