Rev. Dr Jose Nandhikkara CMI

Rev. Dr Jose Nandhikkara CMI

The German thinker Heidegger talks of language as “the house of being”, how is language making our home? As a teacher of philosophy of language what do you think of our cultural language?
In talking of language as ‘the house of being’, Heidegger is referring poetically to the constitutive nature of language in our ways of being human. Human being is linguistic – which is to say that it is pervaded by language, it is a being in language. Although Being is not reducible to language, they are inextricably intertwined. Language, according to Heidegger is ‘that which gives home to human being’ and ‘in its home human being dwells.’ To dwell is to find oneself housed, to be ‘at home’. Language use is so distinctive that human being is defined in terms of the speaking: ‘man shows himself as the entity which talks’ and ‘the ability to speak is what marks man as man.’ According to Heidegger, ’Language is not merely a tool which man possesses alongside many others; language first grants the possibility of standing in the midst of the openness of beings. Only where there is language, is there world, …Language is …the primal event (Ereignis) which disposes of the highest possibility of man’s being.’
Living human beings are not only rooted in the world of things but also formed by and extended to the world of persons. We are in collaboration and conversation with other human beings in an inter-subjective cultural world. It is our ‘cultural language’ that functions as ‘the relation of relations’ and make us members of a community. Language-use is species specific to human beings and we are called homo loquens – speaking beings. Language is a fundamental human practice that is rooted in nature and developed in collaboration and conversation with fellow human beings. The usage of language is neither an invention by an individual nor a gift from society. It is the development of natural propensities of living human beings, a joint venture of nature and culture. It is in the stream of life that language has meaning and function, and we join in the stream of life. We dwell in the house of language and builds up our life relating to objects and persons: in the words of Heidegger, ‘Poetically Man Dwells.’

“When fundamentalism com-es to kill, it can kill with the language” Pope Francis said quoting the Apostle James “the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:5). Why is language corrupting?
Pope Francis is referring to the power of tongue/language, which is recognized by common sense, human history, and the Holy Bible. Bible itself is the Word of God. The word ‘tongue’/’language’ is used more than 150 times in the Bible, showing its importance and power in the human life. Like any other power, tongue/language could be used to build and destroy. As the Proverbs 18:21 shows, ‘Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.’ The metaphor of fire that is used by St James is very apt. Managing fire was very important in the initial stages of human civilization; but fire, if not managed well, could cause death and destruction.
Language as ‘that which gives home to human being’ creates identities and it is through language that human beings express themselves and become persons and social beings. It is the means and expression of personalization and socialization. Language, however, can also corrupt the persons and societies. It can be a cause for inauthenticity of individuals and societies, creating projected and imagined identities and alterities. Misuse of language – half-truths, fake news, lies, and false propaganda – can make the other – person, institution, or nation – friend or foe, leading to life or death. Many people do not judge for themselves, do not decide of their own account, but think, judge, and decide according to what they have heard, said by others. The abuse of language gives rise to fundamentalism, terrorism, destruction and war. As the Proverbs 15:4 shows, “A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.” Let’s pray with the Psalmist, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

Misuse of language – half-truths,
fake news, lies, and false propaganda –
can make the other – person, institution,
or nation – friend or foe, leading to life
or death. Many people do not judge
for themselves, do not decide of
their own account, but think, judge,
and decide according to what they
have heard, said by others.
The abuse of language gives
rise to fundamentalism,
terrorism, destruction and war.

Wittgenstein distinguished two kinds of grammar, i.e. surface grammar and depth grammar. What does he mean by depth grammar? What is behind our talking and talking?
Wittgenstein, in his early work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, thought that problems of philosophy rested on ‘the misunderstanding of the logic of our language’ and used logical analysis of language to solve philosophical problems and clarify the concepts involved. In contrast, he used a descriptive method in his later work, Philosophical Investigations: ‘One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that.’ According to the Tractatus, philosophical problems arise because ‘the logic of our language is misunderstood’ while we have these problems, according to the Investigations, because ‘we do not command a clear view of the use of our words,’ and suggests a ‘grammatical investigation.’ From the ideal, logical, and conceptual language of Tractatus, Philosophical Investigations move towards ordinary language, use of words in the hurly-burly of everyday life. In his view, ‘[a] main source of our failure to understand is that we do not command a clear view of the use of our words. – Our grammar is lacking in this sort of perspicuity.’
To have the stated goal of conceptual clarity, Wittgenstein struggled with the various linguistic rules that constitute our conceptual scheme, and engaged in grammatical investigations because language is structured by grammar. Wittgenstein used the term ‘grammar’ to denote the linguistic rules (surface grammar) and the philosophical investigation of these rules (depth grammar). The surface grammar of a language is the overall system of grammatical rules, which define a language by determining what it makes sense to say in it. Instead of depth grammar, early Wittgenstein used the logical syntax, ‘mirror-image of the world,’ that matches the structural features of reality and the logical form of names mirror the essence of the objects they stand for: ‘the essence of language is a picture of the essence of the world.’ He was looking closer to the grammar of a conceptual or meta-language, the conceptual scheme that makes any system of symbols a language. Realising that there are no meta-logical rules underneath the grammar as depth grammar, later Wittgenstein turned his attention to ordinary language and how the language use is meshed with actions and forms of life. Depth grammar gives a perspicuous representation (ubersichtliche Darstellung) of the use of our words and their meaning in the stream of life. The task of philosophy is to raise the questions ‘How is the word used?’ and ‘What is the grammar of the word?’ in their own ‘language-games’ and ‘forms of life.’ The grammatical investigations give clarity in terms of perspicuity (Ubersichtlichkeit).

“There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.” What is mystical? Are values run against the boundaries of language?
Wittgenstein famously concluded the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, with the gnomic words, ‘What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence’ (TLP 7). In its Preface, he remarked, ‘What can be said at all can be said clearly.’ He was, however, very clear that ‘There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical’. Though the positivists rejected the mystical realm as nonsense and, consequently, as of no concern because they accepting wholeheartedly his assertion that ‘The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science,’ the mystical was of enormous importance to Wittgenstein as he was convinced that a scientific point of view was incapable of answering questions regarding the meaning of life. ‘We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched’. For those who are under the spell of the scientific point of view, there is nothing to be silent about; what we can speak about is all that matters in life. It is in this sense that speaking about values are running against the boundaries of language that speak about physical realities.
Aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual values also are in the realm of the mystical. According to Wittgenstein we will not find values among the facts of the world, for everything is what it is. Therefore, the sense of the world, what constitutes its value, must lie outside the world. It cannot be one more fact among the scientifically observable facts in the world. In his view, ‘The use of the word ‘science’ for ‘everything that can be meaningfully said’ constitutes an ‘overrating of science.’ He recognized that there are ultimate questions regarding the meaning and the purpose of life. Though the mystical experience generally occurs through the mediation of a belief, they are not identical. Mystical-experience, religious beliefs, and practices are interwoven in the stream of life and it is the life of the mystics that gives significance and meaning to them and they, in turn, give meaning and purpose to human life. All are not of equal value, but they overlap and crisscross, witnessing and contributing to the richness of human experiences, shedding light both on the mystical experience and human being. We experience more than we can speak about and we speak about more than we could systematise in propositional language. Mystical language describing mystical experience, though given in the language of describing other experiences, is categorically different. It is not without reason that mystical traditions often preferred via negativa in speaking about mystical experience, both in the East and in the West. This is not to say that there is no experience to speak about, but rather to draw attention to the fact that mystical language is different from our talk about other experiences. The mystical experience is something fundamental for mystics not because of any epistemic or phenomenological property, but by virtue of the place it occupies in their lives. It is the life that gives meaning and significance to our mystical experience and mystical talk.

St Augustine refers to language as the ‘wrapper’ – involucrum – is a signum hiding a res –the reality, is language a cover and even a cover-up? How do we reach the truth beyond the signs?
Augustine integrated his theory of language with his ontological and epistemological thought. According to him, reality is hierarchy of beings: God, spiritual beings, humans, and material things. Human beings are endowed with sense knowledge through sense perception, intellectual knowledge through reflection and innate ideas, and God through divine light of revelation. Sense knowledge, though lower to the intellectual knowledge, is useful for our practical life. To find intellectual knowledge one has to look within: ‘Do not go outside thyself, but return to within thyself; for truth resides in the inmost part of the human being.’ Our interior mental vision is analogous to our physical perception of the external world. We discover the intelligible realities, eternal truths, forms, divine ideas, through the illumination of the divine light.
Language is a system of cultural signs by means of which the speaker signifies things, thoughts, or emotions, and it functions like involucrum (wrapper) covering the reality (res). As human knowledge reaches neither the material objects nor the immaterial realities themselves, human language functions figuratively. We use metaphors to refer to material and immaterial realities, knowing very well that the metaphor is not the reality, but useful to describe the reality partially. As a sign (signum) though the language covers up the actual reality, it points out to reality. We use language because our souls cannot communicate with each other directly as they are trapped in physical bodies. The act of thinking about ‘what we know’ results in a ‘word,’ and the production of this verbum parallels the production of a spoken utterance. A written text is the written representation of speech, and a word signifies an object of sense-perception or intellection. Just as the uttered sound, which makes audible the thought that has its existence in the silence of understanding, is not the same as that thought, so the visible form in which God, who exists in his invisible substance, became visible was not identical with God himself. The words of the Bible are external signs designed to prompt us to God who is beyond all language and thought. The biblical truths we come to know rationally through reflection and interpretation, morally through good living, and spiritually through faith and revelation. Yet we never know God Himself; He is incomprehensible to our finite minds, further tarnished by sin. God, in His mercy, reveals the truth to the penitent and faithful seeker, who leads a life of love and devotion.

As a teacher of language what have you to say on teaching religion? Is teaching religion possible from the point of view of philosophy of language?
In my philosophical formation, teaching, and investigations, three great masters – Sankara (Indian), Aquinas (Catholic), and Wittgenstein (Contemporary) – influences me greatly. The teaching of religion is intimately connected to metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of language. In the metaphysical approach, the questions revolve around the existence and nature of God. The focus, in the epistemological approach, is on the grounds for taking religious beliefs and assertions to be true. From a linguistic point of view, the focus is on the religious use of language that is used to describe world, human life, God and their interrelations, both by followers of religions and philosophers who investigate the vast field of religious phenomenon, paying special attention to the anthropological character of religion and religious language, keeping in mind that it is the homo sapiens who is homo loquens as well as homo religiosus. In all these perspectives, I keep in mind, though related to other aspects of human life, religion is to be examined as religion.
According to Sankara, ‘Since Brahman is the object most desired to be comprehended through knowledge, … the realization of Brahman is the highest human objective.’ He suggests Sadhanacatustaya (the fourfold right mode of living) and vakyartha-vicarana (conceptual, logical, and linguistic analysis of texts) using the threefold method of sravana (hearing), manana (reflection), and nididhyasana (meditation) to achieve this goal. Brahman can never be known as He is, but we could apply the neti (not this) neti (not this) approach, denying all predications. This method is complemented by an analysis of various nama-rupa (name and form) through which is Brhaman is known and spoken about. Though Advaita affirms that satta (reality) and satya (truth) are one and incomprehensible, it speaks of pratibhasika (appearance), vyavaharika (practical), and paramarthika (absolute) satta and satya. The pratibhasika is illusory; it is maya in the sense of illusion, whereas vyavaharika is necessary for worldly life; it is maya as sat-ast-anirvacaniya (being-nonbeing-indefinable). On the other hand, paramarthika is the true and eternal reality. Everything that we do, including religious language and practices, are at the vyavaharika level. It is from the vyavaharika standpoint that the scriptures speak about saguna Brhaman (Brahman with attributes); from the paramarthika level we could only speak about nirguna Brahman (Brahman without attributes), using the method of neti, neti. The Truth at the paramarthika level requires us to transcend to a contemplative silence.
The philosophy of religion propounded by Aquinas shares many similarities with that of Sankara, though there are obvious and important differences. Both faith and reason are important for human life to arrive at the truth about God and all other things in relation to God. Aquinas used analogy to investigate religious language. Predicates are not attributed to God and other realities univocally or equivocally, but analogically, combining via negativa, denying God all attributes; via positiva, attributing God all being and perfections; and via eminentia, adopting the via positiva in the most excellent way. For example, the attribute ‘good’ is applied to creatures and God, but God is infinitely good. The perfections of being occur in their fullest sense only in God: only God exists, knows, loves in the full and proper sense. Our own existence, knowledge, love, are all limited. The beatific vision of God is the summum bonum for us human beings.
Wittgenstein saw language basically as a human praxis, exhibited in a variety of language-games and forms of life. Religious language is part of human language use and forms a kind of unity from a varied and interconnected complex network of different languages. What I learn from Wittgenstein is that one has to take religious language as something fundamental and resist temptations to explain it or to reduce it to something else for which a philosophical or scientific point of view is capable of providing an answer. Confusions occur when the grammar of one language-game is used for another. The grammar of religious points of views are different from the grammar of scientific points of views. According to Wittgenstein, ‘The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts,’ and advance in philosophical understanding is possible only with the investigation of the praxis of linguistic activity and the infinitely various ways the heterogeneous elements of language meshes with life. Though religious beliefs are, by nature, not available for empirical verification, that does not mean that they are not real. Because we are over-familiar with the model of describing physical objects we tend to assume that God is an object that can be located, defined and described. It is very difficult, however, to cast off the spell of God as ‘something’ because the alternative seems to be that God is ‘nothing’, a conclusion believers instinctively avoid. The meaning of a word is to be found in its use. It is in the stream of religious life religious language finds its meaning and function.