Language as a necessary limit for transition of philosophy

Language is elementary for humans. We as humans need a form of interaction between ourselves. Language is so elementary for humans that there have been many languages and the evolving of them through time and place. We have languages for deaf people, blind, for the normal persons and language is even so important in different places that it changes the meaning of the words. An example is bizarre, in English it means odd, strange, absurd, but in Spanish it means brave. Also it is so necessary there is a language for the professions there are in the world, like philosophy, economics, design, programming, medics, etc. we call this jerga, which proves us that Language is essential for human kind. The problem with language is that it limits almost in every aspect because it can be used in very specific ways, just like medics and economist. They may have a chat and use the same words but the words might be misunderstood because they are used in different context because of the career. So Language is elementary for the communication between us and yet the same thing happens when language is applied to philosophy. Here comes the limit ant through history with language. Because besides the type of language used to communicate to each other also the time affects us because of the historical context and the place. Therefore we cannot fully understand what someone was referring to because of the context, the jerga he or she used and the intention he or she meant. This trouble here is that Language is necessary but it limits everything. But in philosophy it should limit us even more because the time, the context, the expressions and the many translations there are of the dialogs of the philosophers. Even if 2 philosophers were talking, if they are not from the same time there might be a misunderstanding precisely because of the context. Yet they need language to communicate with each other so Language is a necessary limit. Plato says, as far as I understood, that language is not necessary for thinking. This is a good theory because we needed to think before making a language to communicate between us, therefore language is not necessary for us. But first the proposition mentioned at the beginning is that language is a limit for philosophy, not for thinking and this is exactly the point. Philosophy comes from the Greek and it means love for wisdom. Philosophy having this meaning will seek knowledge, which is absolute, unchangeable, and perdurable. Here the limit is that we use language, which changes through time, profession, place and abilities, and is in constant motion, to try to explain knowledge so we use non absolutes, or not truth to try to explain truth. This is very complicated because it is like we saw in class, an entity trying to be the being, but still we will not accomplish it. Now the limit here is clear in the

transmition of knowledge and here comes the cratilo dialog. This dialog says that Hermogenes was talking with Cratilo in a discussion about the meaning of words coming in a natural way or in an arbitrary way depending on the habits of people. Hermogenes asks Socrates to intervene in this chat and there is the discussion about the name of the things not expressing the essence of the thing itself because it can be changed to other name or word if necessary. Also I understood the 3 got to the conclusion that changing words constantly is like cheating the language so the oldest language is no different from a new one and unestablished. Therefore the conclusion is like we do not need language, it is not a tool for absolute knowledge and it is like a way of making us complicated the understanding of knowledge. One thing I cannot understand is that if we do not need language, let us say one philosopher gets the absolute knowledge of everything and the meaning of life, but as his moral obligation after getting the idea or the knowledge is to return to us, normal people who do not have that absolute knowledge, to teach us that knowledge. How would he or she do it if he or she does not knows the language we use so he would need language to explain to us the knowledge he got, yet the comprehension of this would not be 100% right due to the limitations we have from language. It is not like he or she would teach us the meaning of life, existence and the being by using his finger and making noises, that would be less comprehendible so he or she would need to know the language to explain himself in order to accomplish his or her moral duty. We get, after this, to the limitation of language. The conclusion of Socrates in the dialog of cratilo has a lot of truth and this is reflected now days in every conversation we may have. Yet after putting the example of what it would be if we had no language it is kind of a deal of what we can do without it; we cannot communicate properly. But there is one thing I really do not comprehend at all; if there is a philosopher who gets to know the absolute knowledge and abandons language to accomplish it, when the time comes to explain this knowledge to the other people would he really have any trouble communicating this knowledge?. What I mean is if he or she has absolute knowledge, the perfection, the idea or the complete soul or whatever you may call it, he should know a way of communicating this knowledge with or without the language because the knowledge is absolute, one, perdurable. This is from the point of Socrates because if we see this like the sophist we would keep in the change and the language would have been, is and will be always a limit for the transition of knowledge, but also if everything changes so would knowledge and because of this knowledge would not be knowledge, not absolute, perdurable, etc. Returning to Socrates` point of view, the problem is that if there is philosopher who achieved the knowledge, would he have or not be limited in sharing or explaining this knowledge

to the other people. And with this I get to a question I cannot answer which is; what is the absolute knowledge? If we could answer this question we should be able to know if there is or not a limit with language when transmitting this same knowledge to everyone else. Yet to achieve this knowledge we might have to quit to language in order to learn it, or not, again when we have the moral obligation to come back. And what makes it even more complicated, we do not know if we or any human being is going to be able to ever achieve the real and absolute knowledge, most of this is only a supposition which might not happen at all. The seek for this knowledge has more than two thousand years which, more than help us achieving this wisdom, is complicating it even more with more specific terms for different things and technology that privates us from thinking, we are screwed in Facebook instead of thinking in something more productive or interesting. The only conclusion I can get to is that we as humans need to communicate and interact; therefore we thought first in a way of communicating and we created language. This language with time changes and it can complicate the understanding of any kind of message due to the context, time, and what the emissary and receptor know about the subject. Language is a limit for communication but not for thought or reason. In the supposition that someone achieves the absolute knowledge he or she would have 2 possible cases; the first one is that when his or her moral obligation comes he or she should have a problem to communicate this knowledge due to language and the perception of the receiver, and the second case is that when the moral obligation comes he or she would have no limit nor problem explaining the absolute knowledge and therefore we would all have the absolute knowledge and live in a utopia where everyone is wise and so none one is.