I have an absolute certainty that cannot be refuted [closed]

Question

Consider the statement "language exists in some way". You cannot question that statement, otherwise you're implying the statement itself, since a question is a form of language. If one acknowledges they "doubt" the statement in some way, they have communicated that fact (through thought or externally), implying the knowledge of "doubt" which is part of a language as a word. If one "deny" the statement, then acknowledgement that the statement has been "denied", implies the statement again. Hence, one can deny the statement, but it will still hold, regardless.

One cannot "refute" the statement even if there is a refutation, since if one acknowledges there is a "refutation" they acknowledge their understanding of the word "refutation" which is a word defined in the English language itself otherwise, hence implying the statement themselves. Otherwise, one does not acknowledge a refutation, and so the claim remains.

Hence if one understands the statement, then the statement holds.

Answer 1

A theoretical weakness in your argument is that you might be imagining everything, including your communication with others, so in that sense your absolute certainty is misplaced. Of course, you are free to take the view that such objections are ridiculous nonsense and therefore your convictions remain on firm foundations.

Answer 2

Your argument hinges on whether the sentences doubting the existence of language are themselves instances of language with perfect certainty. If I doubt that this sentence right here is an instance of language, then there is no contradiction if I also doubt the existence of language. Perhaps the word "doubt" is not part of language as a word, as you have claimed.

What does "language" mean? Can you give a complete definition of "language" from first principles, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this sentence is an example of it?

Some concepts are fundamentally incoherent. Naive set theory, for example, looks sensible on the face of it, but admits Russell's paradox, and is therefore incoherent. Can you prove that language is not a fundamentally incoherent concept? English admits the Berry paradox. If language is fundamentally an incoherent concept, then perhaps these sentences are not examples of language.

Is there any mechanical procedure to distinguish instances of "language" from instances of "non-language"? Are the curves on an oscilloscope "language" or not? How about the markings on a caterpillar? If we cannot precisely demarcate language from non-language, can we really be justifiably certain in saying that language exists, or that these sentences are instances of it? Arguably not.

Answer 3

Not everyone at all times has the ability to understand. Understanding is an impermanent phenomena. If I don’t understand what you are saying then how can we establish the communication in the first place. Therefore your statement that “language exists in some way” always is not true. It depends on your faculty of understanding language. Language understanding ability is impermanent.

Answer 4

You're confusing assertion conditions with truth conditions. Indeed, perhaps one cannot assert 'language doesn't exist', but that doesn't mean that there are no circumstances under which this statement is true. It's similar with 'I don't exist' or 'I am dead' or 'I am sleeping' (they contain indexical expressions, so it's a bit more complicated, because truth conditions of the statement depend on who is referenced by the 'I').

Because clearly, "I don't exist" is true for p if and only if p doesnt't exist

And similarly "language doesn't exist" is true if and only if language doesn't exist

One can clearly see the difference if one uses a conditional, i.e. "If language doesn't exist, then no one speaks a language" is intelligible and true, although one couldn't ever tell that language doesn't exist. Similarly "When I am sleeping, please don't behave loudly" is clearly intelligible although one cannot say consciously that one is sleeping without contradicting oneself.

One application of this feature of language is known as the Frege-Geach argument against moral emotivism. If "Murder is immoral" was equivalent to "Boo, murder!" then moral discourse would be impossible, that is: "If murder is immoral, then one ought not to murder" would be clearly false, because: "If boo, murder, then x" is clearly nonsense, just as "If close the window!, then x" is nonsense.

In other words: When in doubt, embed a statement in a conditional and see what happens!

Answer 5

I can refute your argument by challenging you to prove that the property 'irrefutable' exists. What does it mean to be irrefutable, and how can you prove it exists? Consider the following.

Your argument seems rather close to Cartesian certainty that begins with "I think, therefore I am". In the same way one cannot think about it and deny thought exists, one cannot use language and deny language exists, at least at first glance. But let me suggest the following.

You claim language exists. So be it. What is it and why is it objectively real? For instance, it is well known that the sounds to convey language do not entail the experience of language any more than the wavelengths of a stream of photons entail the experience of sight. Red is not a property of an apple, it is a construction of a mind, and likewise, words are not properties of sound, but are also constructions of the mind. When speech recognition in natural language processing began, the first problem was determining how sound could be segmented into words because words are not physical properties of sound at all.

Now, your argument, like Descartes's shift to the question, does the mind exist? Unlike an apple, which a strong argument exists from empirical lines of thinking, that it has physical properties, that others can agree in a blind study on those properties, that the apple can be measured by instrumentation independent of human observation, the existence of thoughts and language becomes more difficult.

What is a mind? Can anyone witness another mind? Is there physical evidence of minds, and how do the constituents of minds, whatever they might be, relate to the physical world? How does one even define mind begin with? Here, the questions about "mental phenomena" become far less certain. Cognitive science, of course, has amassed an empirical framework to deal with these challenges which I would argue is rather persuasive to declare a mind exists, and that minds and languages are related. But it begs the question why we should be allowed to use the verb 'to exist' with things we cannot directly measure, see, experience with our senses directly; language is no more physical than redness.

This dispute over the language rules that governs the use of the phrase 'language exists' therefore is a complicated matter because it requires an adequate definition of language and existence, and neither of those tasks are straightforward. My personal belief is that "irrefutable" is tough to apply to any argument, because it implies there is some undeniable truth that is not subject to revision or question, and it's hard to see how that can apply to any claim. Consider the simple argument that we are actually nothing more than simulations of people in a quantum computer in an actual physical universe. If we are a simulation, then not only does it seem language is not real, but it begs the question is our simulated physical universe even real? That's enough doubt to make your claim refutable.

For more explanation on how the property 'irrefutable' itself might not exist, see the IEP's article on fallibilism.

Answer 6

One cannot "refute" the statement even if there is a refutation, since if one acknowledges there is a "refutation" they acknowledge their understanding of the word "refutation" which is a word defined in the English language itself otherwise, hence implying the statement themselves.

I'm French and I was able to think about refutations to the statement without thinking the English word "refutation". I thought about this after reading the first paragraph but before reading the second paragraph, so that I really did not think at all about the word "refutation". So it seems the premise that the statement cannot be refuted without using the word "refutation" is flawed.

If one acknowledges they "doubt" the statement in some way, they have communicated that fact (through thought or externally), implying the knowledge of "doubt" which is part of a language as a word.

I was able to doubt the statement simply by frowning and shaking my head. I frowned and shook my head after reading the first two sentences, but before reading the third sentence, so that I really did not think at all about the word "doubt", in English or in French, while I was acknowledging my doubt by frowning and shaking my head. So it seems that the knowledge of word "doubt" and its part of language is not necessary to acknowledge doubt itself.

As a conclusion:

There are facts, and then there is description of these facts using language. Whether language exists or doesn't exists is a fact; "Language doesn't exist" is a sentence; if it is true that language doesn't exist, then sentence "Language doesn't exist" probably doesn't exist either, but just because the sentence "Language doesn't exist" doesn't exist, doesn't mean that language does exist.

Answer 7

Oh... I can refute it!

First... you have to define language, which you did not. Is language written, spoken, telepathy, or some other sensory protocol? If you have two cultures that have no sensory interfaces, then your argument fails.

I refute your conjecture because communication via language with two cultures that have no sensory interface fails.