A unifying language for the metaphysical?

I have often said that human language is the greatest stumbling block that we, as a species, have in trying to understand anything fundamental about the world we live in. You may have a sudden brilliant insight; the moment you try to articulate it, it's either gone or you find that it cannot be articulated. Language does not enhance understanding. On the contrary, it derails understanding. Perhaps this is why the great sages of the past were more likely to speak in parables, to offer analogies, rather than to describe something directly.

Recall Lao-Tzu's famous dictum: "Those who know, do not say. Those who say, do not know."

There's a story about a Zen master who was asked by his students what those words meant. He thought for a moment, then said, "Do you know the fragrance of a rose?" They all said yes. "Describe it in words for me," said the master. The class was silent.

I doubt very much that your idea of a universal language of metaphysics could ever be realized. It's a quite different matter with mathematics or the so-called "hard" sciences. These disciplines deal only with apparent reality. Metaphysics deals with ultimate reality.

Good post, MA. (As usual.)

It could. But I don't think you can quantify the unquantifiable. So there will never be an accepted unified definition of things from which to build a foundation.

I agree with rosborne: That's the bottom line; you can't quantify something that isn't quantifiable even if we all spoke the same "language." Our universe just isn't capable.

This reminds me of Wittgenstein's notion that there are not such things as philosophical problems but rather only misunderstandings of language, the famous quote being that a word, in nearly all cases, can be defined by the way in which it is used.

Merry Andrew

You cut right to the core of what I am thinking about.

In the privacy of my own mind I tend to think of it as the secret everyone knows but no one can share.

So when it comes down to it, the universal language of metaphysics is a language that cannot be spoken. According to my take on it, understanding of the issues you describe enables the person experiencing it to see the truth or aptitude of a concept as it is defined by others, and its function in "their scheme of things".

Perhaps it is more poetic than aything else say that the "universal language of metaphysics" is silence. Silence in which words may reveal their limits and faith may be deprived of its roots.
But the reality of the matter is that any definition of these abstract matters is, at best, a subjective take. Beyond that, I agree with the claim that the idea of a universal language of metaphysics could never be realized, simply because the means we have to convey such a thing is inadequate. Any truth conveyed in words demands a never ending string of modifications...

Agreed (obviously). I believe that the deepest and most profound truths can only be intuited, never arrived at through rational thought and -- therefore -- never adequately articulated.

And I would also venture that it will always be "individualized."

Another way of saying what has already been said is that the problems of metaphysics are not merely linguistic; sometimes they're also moral. It's not simply that people have conflicting definitions of "soul" or "God"; they also have conflicting moral values invested in those words. It is one thing to discuss the language of metaphysics (i.e. the basic vocabulary we use when we talk about it), and quite another to discuss our "metaphysical realities," as you put it. The latter involves not simply vocabulary but beliefs about how the ideas to which the vocabulary refers operate in relation to each other. Especially when dealing the cosmological/religious aspects of metaphysics, the terms carry with them quite a lot of social, personal, and moral baggage that would not be cleared away even if we arrived at a stable definitions. So asking if there can ever be a unifying language of metaphysics is tantamount to asking whether there can ever be universal consensus about the proper role of God, or of the soul, in our lives. Even if, for the sake of argument, we all agreed on a basic definition of God--say, as simply a nonmaterial entity--this would not in itself cause our metaphysical realities to be resolved.

It seems to me, at this moment at least, that metaphysics IS a problem of language, especially of grammar.

JLN, The issues of language and grammar is not limited to metaphysics.

Not limited to, but in the realm of metaphysics is where they do the most damage.