…
M: The ontological reductionism of language and the asymmetry it embodies cause objective reality to be dissolved within dichotomous categorizations; for linguistic signs, rather than being neutral reflectors by nature, are fraught with socially and ideologically constructed semantic loads. Semiotics reveals that every linguistic unit necessarily carries positional and labeling burdens: concepts are laden with layers of meaning accumulated throughout social history. In this context, because every attempt at comprehension is predetermined by the radically loaded semiotic codes of language, the relationship between subject and object inevitably undergoes an epistemic distortion; therefore, speaking in “black or white”—constructing a dualistic discourse that disregards dialectical nuances—is an illusion. Language does not describe reality; it labels it, classifies it, and thus reproduces it in line with its own value hierarchies.
D: There is definitely a language problem, and you are certainly not contributing to its solution.
Y: Let it stay problematic, my friend, what on earth is this!
D: If I had to choose between a philosophical speech and a theological one, I’d genuinely hesitate, it’s that bad.
M: Don’t exaggerate, just because it’s an intimate environment…
D: You took the stage just because it’s intimate, but nobody is listening to your tune.
M: He who speaks the truth is cast out from nine villages.
D: Play the game, brother, don’t lecture us.
M: People want black and white. Or rather, they cling to labels that seem simple to them. Whereas, one must put effort into language. Answers that lack effort lead to the drifting of our concepts. One must be moderate in every matter, because language is such a tool. Yet, we exclude those who advocate that everyone has a right, and we flee toward the sides that are more visible, require no energy, and are simple to understand. Paradoxically, what is simple to understand is difficult to live by.
Y: That is your opinion, my dear friend. Didn’t we say that most of us are children in most matters? We do not choose to advance in linguistics. You expect everyone to be a physician to use their body, an engineer to drive a car, an athlete to walk, and a physicist to stand still.
M: No, I just expect a little care regarding what relates to humanity—that is, its most important role.
D: Look, here is another point where you’ve reconciled the two of us. We don’t want to be that careful. Okay, philosophy is nice, let’s debate it, but let’s tone down the terminology a bit.
M: Doesn’t every field have its terminology?
Y: Every field has its terminology, but if we don’t make a fundamental pursuit like philosophy more comprehensible, how can we debate it?
M: Well, if we make it comprehensible, won’t its meaning diminish too?
D: Anyway guys, this is probably a side effect of professional deformation and specialization.
M: Absolutely, we all make choices and look at the world through the lens of those choices.
Y: Let’s make our choice in favor of God. It’s actually very simple: a single-option menu where you can choose the best for yourself, rather than a thousand varieties of harmful offers.
M: You know that analogical reasoning is the exact opposite of what I do, right? You’re taking the easy way out. You have no content, you only have symbols.
D: I think the two of you are quite similar. It’s as if you’ve constructed a self-design through word games.
M: No, brother, when we don’t focus for a long time, we fail to realize that being human means being language. Like musicianship, archery, or hunting, but it’s a path humanity has never chosen. Because we are brainwashed by language, and words are accepted outright like a religion. Since we know the world through language, we think the world consists only of language. Only conceptual analysts, who suffer the pain and distress of concepts, can realize this.
…
