Can humans ever truly grasp the nature of reality? Philosophers have been wrestling with this question for millennia, and while some may claim certainty, many acknowledge the profound limitations of human understanding. At the heart of this inquiry lies a critical tool we rely on daily: language. We use words to describe our world, express our thoughts, and communicate with one another, but can language fully capture the essence of what we experience?
In 1922, Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a striking insight:
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”
With this statement, Wittgenstein wasn’t just commenting on vocabulary—he was pointing to a fundamental issue. The boundaries of our language define the boundaries of what we can think and express. This is where linguistic skepticism comes into play: the idea that language, while powerful, is inherently limited.
Linguistic skepticism raises the question—can our words ever truly represent reality, or are we forever confined to abstract representations that fall short of the richness of experience?
This introduction to linguistic skepticism opens up a broader discussion on the limits of human comprehension and sets the stage for exploring the deeper philosophical challenges we face in understanding the universe.
The Sunset Thought Experiment: A Case for Linguistic Skepticism
Imagine trying to describe a breathtaking sunset to someone who’s been blind from birth. You could use every poetic word in the dictionary, paint vivid images with metaphors, or even borrow from science to explain the way light scatters across the sky at dusk. But no matter how hard you try, there’s an undeniable truth—words alone will never capture the raw experience of seeing the sunset. This is the essence of linguistic skepticism. Words are powerful, yes, but they are also limited. They are merely abstract representations we use to represent reality, and can never fully replicate the richness of direct experiences.
This thought experiment illustrates a key idea: language, as impressive as it is, falls short of the reality it tries to describe. Our words can only offer approximations of the world around us. While we may express feelings of awe or describe colors in detail, the true essence of witnessing the sun dip below the horizon remains locked in the realm of experience, inaccessible to language alone.
Prelinguistic Thoughts: The Mind Before Language
Before your inner voice puts words to your thoughts, something else is happening in your mind. This is where prelinguistic thought comes in—the raw mental process that occurs before we translate thoughts into language. Think of it as the moment of understanding that exists before you begin to articulate it. These prelinguistic thoughts are the foundation of our consciousness. They exist in a realm where language hasn’t yet taken shape, but the core of the idea is already there.
Linguistic skepticism highlights the gap between these prelinguistic thoughts and the words we use to express them. No matter how articulate we become, the translation from thought to word is never perfect. There’s always something lost in the process, some subtle nuance or feeling that the words can’t quite grasp. We might talk about love, fear, or beauty, but the prelinguistic essence of these emotions remains beyond the reach of our vocabulary.
Here’s your first take-away: Our words only resonate deeply with others who have shared the same or similar experiences. Without that common ground, the true depth of meaning behind our words remains elusive.
Beyond Words: The Reach of Linguistic Skepticism
Linguistic skepticism isn’t just a thought experiment or a philosophical curiosity—it touches every part of how we communicate. In everyday life, we constantly encounter the limitations of language. Think about trying to explain a complex feeling or a personal experience to someone else. You may find yourself saying, “I can’t put it into words,” or “It’s hard to describe.” These moments remind us that language, while useful, only scratches the surface of what we truly mean.
The gap between words and reality becomes even more evident when we confront deeply personal or profound experiences. While we can share words, stories, and ideas, the fullness of what we experience—the raw reality—often remains just beyond the limits of language. Linguistic skepticism forces us to reckon with the idea that, no matter how sophisticated our communication becomes, some aspects of life will always be beyond verbal expression. And yet, we continue to try, as if in the act of speaking, we might somehow bridge that gap.
Now, here’s your second take-away: We perceive reality through the narrow lens of our limited senses. Our minds then create interpretations of those sensory inputs based on our constrained cognitive abilities. That’s perception. The interpreting of our senses. This means that even our prelinguistic thoughts—those raw, unspoken ideas—are abstractions of reality. The words we write on a page are just an abstracted and filtered version of the running script in our inner voice. That inner voice, in turn, represents only a filtered version of our prelinguistic thoughts. Those inner words are abstractions of a more complex prelinguistic thought. And those prelinguistic thoughts themselves are interpretations of a reality that is, ultimately, far more complex than we can ever fully grasp. Even our prelinguistic thoughts are abstract representations of reality.
Epistemological Skepticism: The Bigger Question
Linguistic skepticism questions whether language can fully express the world as we experience it, but epistemological skepticism takes us one step further. It challenges not only the limits of language but the very ability of humans to understand the universe at all. Can we truly grasp reality, or are there barriers beyond our comprehension?
Where linguistic skepticism focuses on our inability to communicate the depth of experience, epistemological skepticism broadens the scope—asking whether there are truths, dimensions, or realms of existence that we, as humans, may simply never be able to know. Even if we could find the perfect words, could our minds ever fully comprehend the entirety of the universe? This line of thinking brings us to an unsettling possibility: some knowledge may always remain just beyond our reach, hidden in places we cannot perceive.
Hidden Dimensions: The Realms We Cannot Grasp
Epistemological skepticism pushes us to confront the potential existence of unseen dimensions, alternate realities, or deeper layers of existence that lie outside our grasp. Think of the universe like a vast book—one we can only read a single page of, while the rest remains closed to us. Science hints at the possibility of other dimensions or unknown forces, but even with our greatest tools and theories, we may never be able to fully explore them.
Could there be truths that, like the concept of color to someone blind from birth, are simply inaccessible to us? Epistemological skepticism asks whether we are limited not just by language but by our very minds—minds that might never grasp certain fundamental aspects of reality. It suggests that there may be realms where our understanding, no matter how advanced, cannot tread.
The Role of Cognitive Limits in Philosophical Skepticism
To grasp the limits of our understanding, consider this: a dog cannot comprehend algebra, no matter how much training it receives. This isn’t a flaw in the dog; it’s a limitation of its cognitive abilities. Now, imagine that we are like that dog when it comes to the universe. There might be aspects of existence—higher dimensions, alternate realms, or complex truths—that our brains simply aren’t wired to comprehend.
Epistemological skepticism suggests that just as a dog’s cognitive abilities limit its understanding, our own cognitive limitations prevent us from accessing certain truths. We are bound by the constraints of our evolution, our senses, and our brain’s processing power. Some knowledge may be forever out of reach, no matter how much we learn or evolve.
Here’s your final take-away: Our understanding of reality is shaped by layers of abstraction. From the sensory input that creates our perception, to the prelinguistic thoughts that precede language, to the inner voice that narrates our thoughts, we are constantly dealing with filtered and abstracted versions of the world. But epistemological skepticism takes this even further. It suggests that there are truths and realities that may be forever beyond human comprehension. Even with all the abstractions peeled away, the ultimate nature of reality might still elude us—just as algebra remains incomprehensible to a dog.
Conclusion: The Layers of Abstraction
Now, as a final thought experiment, let’s put it all together. Imagine for a moment that Heaven exists. Whether you’re a believer or not, this is just a thought experiment—but if you’d rather picture another spatial dimension implied by Einstein’s equations, that works too!
No one on Earth has direct experience with this other realm. Our ability to understand it, if it exists, comes entirely from the minds of humans. We encounter Heaven through words written in religious texts or through the mathematical formulas of scientists proposing higher dimensions. But whether the description comes from faith or science, we are immediately faced with the first layer of abstraction: language. These words and symbols are mere representations, ways to describe something entirely beyond our everyday reality. Words like “paradise” or “eternity” attempt to convey a realm so different from ours, yet they can only approximate what we imagine it to be.
Now, step back. Before those words are written down or spoken, they exist in the minds of the writers or thinkers. But even before those minds settled on the words to use, they experienced prelinguistic thoughts. These raw, unspoken ideas are the mind’s first attempt to understand the concept of Heaven or higher dimensions. But even these prelinguistic thoughts are filtered—they are abstract interpretations of reality. In the case of Heaven, we’re interpreting something that no human has ever encountered, so our thoughts are already several steps removed from whatever reality might actually be out there.
But the layers don’t stop there. Even our prelinguistic thoughts come from perceptions—the brain’s processing of sensory inputs. While we’ve never experienced Heaven, our mind tries to use the limited tools it has—our experiences with life, love, and the universe—to create some kind of mental image. Yet, these perceptions are abstractions of what we know from our senses. And even our senses are limited, constrained to detecting only a small slice of reality. We see, hear, and feel only a fraction of what’s out there. If Heaven or higher dimensions exist, they are likely beyond the grasp of our senses, leaving us to work with fragmented and incomplete data.
Finally, we arrive at the ultimate question posed by epistemological skepticism: even if we strip away the layers of language, thought, perception, and sensory input, can we ever really understand what Heaven or higher dimensions are? Could it be that the very nature of these realms is beyond human comprehension? Just as a dog cannot grasp the concept of algebra, there may be truths, realities, or dimensions that are simply inaccessible to our minds—no matter how many layers we try to peel back.
And here’s the unsettling but fascinating conclusion: Every layer of understanding we peel away only reveals more abstraction beneath. We live in a world of symbols, filtered perceptions, and mental constructs. If Heaven or another realm exists, it may be so complex, so vast, that it remains forever just beyond our reach. Our language, thoughts, and senses give us glimpses, but we may never truly grasp the full picture.
In the end, linguistic and epistemological skepticism remind us of one simple truth: we are creatures of limited understanding, navigating a universe far more mysterious than we can ever fully know.
— map / TST —
Get the full story…
The two ideas of linguistic and epistemological skepticism are just two of the many uplifting ideas explored in my “30 Philosophers” book. And, nothing replaces the ability of the long-format of a book to paint a more complete picture.
30 Philosophers: A New Look at Timeless Ideas
