…
M: Religion and ideal values cannot be guilty. There is no guilty party. Language is simply this kind of tool. Unfortunately, it requires maintenance, yet we almost never maintain it. Think of it as a machine. It isn’t working, but we assume it is. That’s where the real danger lies.
D: Water still boils at its boiling point. What do you say to that? Mathematics has remained the same for three thousand years.
M: Those involve a different use of language. Propositional, apodictic structures cannot be compared with humanity, whose structures have not yet stabilized. The issue is not what happened in the universe’s past, but what will become of humanity, a relatively new structure. Scientific language succeeds by narrowing itself as much as possible. “Water boils at one hundred degrees.” That sentence contains no love, justice, identity, or intention. It works by reducing the burden carried by concepts.
Y: So language doesn’t break down when science speaks, only when we do?
M: Scientific language also breaks down—but much more slowly. Because it constantly tests its words through experiment. Terms like “mass,” “energy,” and “velocity” are not used arbitrarily.
D: Then the solution is to spread the scientific method everywhere.
M: Not exactly. Science succeeds by narrowing its concepts. Human beings live by expanding theirs. “Freedom,” “morality,” “homeland,” “honor”… None of these has a laboratory.
D: Then let’s define them more precisely.
M: We’ve been trying for centuries. Much of philosophy is exactly that effort. But the moment you define one concept, you need another word to explain it. Then another to explain that one. Language is like a ladder folding back onto itself.
Y: You’re making everything more complicated again. People don’t talk like this in everyday life.
M: They don’t. That’s why they fight over the same words. Two people both say “justice,” but one means revenge while the other means equality.
D: Mathematics doesn’t have that problem.
M: Because mathematics locks meaning into symbols as tightly as possible. When you write “2 + 2 = 4,” you can’t decide tomorrow that “4” means something different.
D: Then the human sciences should become mathematical too.
M: If only the problem were merely calculation. Numbers don’t change; people change one another by speaking. Mathematics describes its objects, whereas language sometimes creates its own.
Y: What do you mean?
M: Tell a child, “You’re lazy,” every day for years. Eventually you won’t just have spoken a word—you’ll have built a person.
D: So in some domains language isn’t a measuring instrument but a productive one.
M: Exactly. That’s why the language of science and the language of human life are not the same machine. One is calibrated with rulers and instruments; the other with culture, education, and criticism. We’ve neglected the maintenance of the second.
D: So once again you’ve arrived at the conclusion that philosophy is necessary.
Y: I think we’ve arrived at religion. Human beings can only be shaped through a vision.
M: Neither exactly. But social constructions like religion have certainly been useful.
Y: Didn’t you just say humanity hasn’t stabilized yet—that it’s still a new structure?
M: Yes. It was an analogy. It’s as if humanity is still under construction.
Y: Can you think of any other path toward stabilization?
M: Not in the sense of everyone becoming the same. But becoming more predictable and sustainable might benefit us.
D: Forget this fantasy of the ideal human. Philosophy has already drawn the boundaries of what can be meaningfully discussed. Claims like these aren’t scientific and have no place in the public sphere. Go dream about them if you like.
M: You may be right. But then how are we supposed to shape human beings?
D: We don’t shape them. We present accurate knowledge, and they will take shape on their own.
