Postmodernists would content that what we perceive as reality is merely a linguistic construct that may or may not have any bearing to the actual world-as-it-is, if such a thing exists. The meaning of this is that our reality consists of how we use and understand words and language, and that basically our language is our universe. The problem with this, however, is that it would have to suggest an apriori knowledge of language for such a thing to be true, since we must obtain our impressions from somewhere, and to say otherwise would suggest empiricism or rationalism, which postmodernism seeks to avoid. If we obtain impressions from the external world then we are empirical, and in that case language is a reflection of the external world and is in fact at least to some point subservient to that external world. If we obtain impressions from our minds and thoughts and form our view of reality in that way, then we are rationalists, and language is based on our rationalistic impulses, and reality is not based on linguistics. If we are born with apriori or innate knowledge, then that knowledge must either exist with or without words; if without, then our linguistic constructs are based upon apriori concepts, and if with words, then all such linguistic constructs are known apriori, and in that case all unborn children have the capacity for thought. I think that the true postmodernist position, however, attempts to blend rationalism with empiricism in such a way that we form language based in part upon such processes, and that the results of such processes are not how we understand reality but rather our interpretations of the results of such processes are how we understand reality. But this is really saying very little, since in either case part of our reality is formed by our environment and our minds, which were both created either before us or with us. Otherwise we exist in a vacuum with only apriori knowledge, forming impressions from the understandings that we are given from birth.

At any rate, however, unborn children do not think in the English language. They do not think in French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or even Hebrew. When they exist the womb they may attempt to speak in very indistinct syllables, but since as they grow they learn another form of language it is reasonable to suggest that these “gew’s” and “ga’s” are not a truly valid human language, but rather a sort of pre-language. Language is not necessarily a reality in itself, but rather a reflection of humans thoughts and feelings, emotions and impulses, and in this case it is in this way that babies think. To them the world is not full of words, but of emotions and feelings and thoughts; but to attempt to express their thoughts in any kind of human language is only an approximation at best. Since we as humans tend to think in language as second nature, it makes sense that we tend to equate our linguistic constructs as reality itself. But they are not, they are only reflections and embodiments of the impressions that we receive as part of reality and the universe in which we live. True living as a human is not to live within a linguistic construct but rather in the direct and pure world of thoughts and feelings, which language as a secondary means of understanding reality.

by JJG