In addition to linking language with action, Zhuangzi, in the “Commenting on the Equality of Things” pushes for “contingency in terms of language.” There is no fixed relation, he says, between the name and the object that it names: “The name is a guest of the substance.” Zhuangzi says that because every perspective is necessarily different, the distinctions made are always coming from different perspectives and must always differ as well (Ames/Callahan 181). This “contingency in terms,” or “language which flows constantly over, as from a full goblet,” is not only in “accord with God,” according to Zhuangzi, but also an answer to the flaw of literalism’s self-referencialism (Giles 363).
In his Discourse on Thinking, Martin Heidegger’s “Conversation on a Country Path About Thinking” houses all of the linguistic and philosophical concerns address such far, and in doing so, supports Traditional Eastern thinking’s deviation from literalism. The conversation first appears similar to a Platonic dialogue because of its alternating narration and inquisitive tone, but ultimately, Heidegger’s Conversation is a fundamentally different style of text. Instead of being a dialogueO’Brien 6 between two people of clearly opposing ideologies, each of whom is arguing in the name of his ideology, Heidegger sets three (gender neutral) characters to arguing. The Scientist, Teacher, and Student, as it were, do not argue among themselves, that is to say, they are not in opposition to one another, for they share a common goal and work together toward reaching it. Aside from the difference in method, another crucial difference is in the treatment of language. Whereas the Greeks’ expectations existed within the limitations of language, and allowed the characters of Platonic dialogues to walk away, satisfied with a definition, Heidegger is after a little more. He wants to express epistemological and metaphysical ideas whose needs exceed the communicative power of conventional language.
Heidegger shows readers the frustration of language’s limits by creating three characters who continuously misunderstand and question each other. As they continue to subdivide topics of contention, they move further and further from their goal. Finally, they conclude that some ideas cannot be made finite with language, but our goal should always to be “going toward” them. What Heidegger wants to “go toward” is Being, which both in its nature and treatment, is very similar to the Traditional Chinese concept of Tao.
3,350 Responses to “Language: Where Literalism & Experience Meet”