Patri Lily

A writer, a music composer, a gamer and such.🇻🇳 Vietnamese 🇻🇳Born in 2004.
She/her.Article name: A cup of water
-Patri Lily: the author of this article-Written in: January 2025Taken from: my WIP book

WARNING: This article can be more suitable for readers aged 16-18 and above. Although it does not contain any adult/mature content, the ideas presented and the language used could be too complex for younger readers.Having said that, if you can still read this article at a younger age, go ahead.Also, this was written with a literary mindset and based on lived experiences and philosophical reasoning/analysis, rather than a strict adherence to rigourous scientific research etiquette. Additionally, some words, phrases and "collocations" are intentionally put for unspoken implications and/or metaphors that are implicitly shared and used by the writer.

A cup of water

Okay, let's take a cup of water as an example. You know that it is a cup of water, right?

What are the underlying factors of us humans calling it a cup of water? What was it called before we humans started to be able to call it a cup of water in our mother tongues and/or other languages?When language came into existence, our ancestors started using terms to identify things (eg a table, a chair, some food, some vegetables, a house, etc.). This is also a process that includes subjectivity, and it is necessary for our understanding of things around us and also communication in general. To explain, language comes from perception, and perception also comes from subjectivity; and even when language is used to address objective reality, this objectivity is not perfect and complete. In this context, the actual truth is bent to suit our needs to identify and/or understand it. To me, it is just an item or an incident rather than a concrete truth.Okay, let's go back to that cup of water. We call it a cup of water because that is typically how we have chosen to label and understand the combination of its elements: a container and the liquid it holds. That means the word 'cup' signifies the container and 'water' denotes the substance within. These terms are a shared agreement among speakers of a particular language to represent this object.But if we strip away our linguistic labels, what is it really? Scientifically, the liquid is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, and the cup is likely made of materials like ceramic, glass and/or plastic. However, even these scientific labels are constructs: human attempts to define and categorise. Without language, the cup and the water are merely phenomena existing in the physical world without the subjective layers we impose on them.Oh, I forgot. When we call the cup of water "merely phenomena existing in the physical world", we are also imposing our subjective thoughts on us by calling it so (we are also using language to define things in this case). To achieve absolute objectivity in this context and various others that are similar (and perhaps even those that are not), we just do not call it anything at all; what I mean here is that when these molecules and substances exist, to achieve absolute (100%) objectivity is to acknowledge that they exist without giving them any labels at all (I would like to quote part of my own text taken from above for further clarity: “language comes from perception, and perception also comes from subjectivity; and even when language is used to address objective reality, this objectivity is not complete”). However, we must risk losing our senses and communication in order to achieve that; again, this means there is still some objectivity in linguistics but this objectivity is not 100%.This act of naming and categorising is deeply rooted in our need to make sense of the world. To explain, it can help us distinguish between objects, understand their utility and communicate their existence to others. Yet, as we assign names, we also inevitably shape our perception of reality and align it with human priorities and perspectives. For instance, we tend to view the cup of water as a source of hydration: an object with purpose and meaning; nevertheless, to another creature, it may merely be an obstacle or an incidental part of the natural environment.In this way, language both connects us to and separates us from reality. It allows us to interact with the world effectively, but it also introduces a layer of subjectivity in tandem. The "truth" of the cup of water, its essence and its existence, may lie beyond what we can express or comprehend, which is restricted by the limits of human cognition and language.So, when we call it a cup of water, we are participating in a shared narrative, one that simplifies and contextualises the world around us for practical purposes. Yet, this narrative is not the wholly actual truth, it is a human truth (a truth that is limited to typical humans) instead. What I mean here is that when we call a cup of water ‘a cup of water’, we are actually bending the actual/original truth to suit our need for identifying the specific thing we refer to.Okay, we tend to simplify things around us so that we can understand them. In this context, the word 'truth' is easier to communicate to other individuals than the phrase 'human truth' according to the typical ways of thinking of concrete thinkers.Either way, just like the example above about that cup of water, we tend to bend things to suit our need for communication and comprehension. That is to say, all these are guidelines of language and understanding to facilitate communication, rather than concrete rules and strictly actual truths of the world and space. We tend to stick to these guidelines so others can understand us (we learn these guidelines to understand conversations at a basic, necessary level and to learn how to communicate in such ways so other individuals can understand what we say), not because these are absolute rules of communication. This way, we can minimise the costs of understanding what we say to each other so that we can maintain human comfort in our conversations: in English Semantics, this is called the Maxims of Manner (be clear).This is similar to a concrete thinker learning any other language than their own, or an individual doing so in the early stages of that. They tend to focus on the basics so they can enhance their understanding at the start without overwhelming themselves, and their target of doing that is mostly to have functional and productive conversations with native speakers of their target language(s) at a basic level and to minimise unwanted strains on both sides. Let me repeat, again, these are NOT absolute rules of communication and the truth itself AT ALL, they are there to make communication easier for us all.I would like to quote the first sentence of Passage C above as follows:“According to Zoe Bee's YouTube video about media literacy, our brains tend to like easy and comfortable things, and based on my experience, the concept of maturity is there to facilitate that.”What I mean here is that language, human communication and other such concepts and phenomena are not excluded in this case.Again, my statements and elaborations here are both subjective and “objective” to a certain extent.All that does not mean subjectivity is wrong. That is, it is actually one of the crucial components that contribute to the vibrant nature of our world as a whole.Subjectivity, embedded in each of us, can add colour, meaning and nuance to the otherwise indifferent structure of reality. To explain, it is what allows us to find beauty in a sunset, emotion in a melody or significance in a personal memory: none of which exist in the same way without a perceiver to interpret them. Through subjectivity, we can construct values, relationships, cultures and even identities. Without it, existence could likely be stripped of interpretation and intention: just motion and matter, void of narrative.This is also part of our individual autonomy as individuals living in this world. That is, our ability to perceive, interpret and assign meaning to our experiences can be a crucial part of our agency: not just to survive, but to choose how we understand and engage with our surroundings, this then can shape both our internal lives and our relationships with others.Subjectivity, then, is not an obstacle to absolute truth but a lens through which truth becomes human: it helps us navigate complexity, attach meaning to patterns and share experiences in a way that fosters connection. In other words, while it may bend the “objective” to suit our understanding, it also breathes life into that understanding: it creates a shared world that is not merely functional but emotionally and intellectually rich.This interplay between subjectivity and, let's call it 'subjective' reality for now, is not a weakness but a fundamental aspect of human cognition. It reflects the very architecture of how we make sense of the world: not by absorbing raw data in isolation, but by filtering it through emotions, memories, cultural contexts, personal frameworks and many other aspects of each of us (or many of us together as a community). These internal processes can give rise to art, philosophy, language, spirituality and the various ways in which we seek to express the not-so-expressible. Rather than distorting reality, subjectivity often allows us to relate to it more meaningfully, translating otherwise bland, and perhaps blatant and/or blunt, facts into human experience.So, rather than viewing subjectivity as a flaw in our perception, it can be embraced as a bridge between internal consciousness and the external world. That is, it is the space where pure phenomena become stories, tools, symbols, philosophies and such. Even though this means we will never experience reality in a fully objective, unfiltered form, it also means that our experience of life is imbued with depth, diversity and meaning: qualities that pure objectivity alone could never offer. The cup of water illustrated above can indeed be a prominent example of this.Now, why is it unnatural for most people to comprehend that language is a product of ideas and idealism?First, most people use language without thinking about it: language feels natural and automatic to them. To explain, they typically do not reflect on how it originated from ideas, cultural ideals, abstract representations and such, because for them, it is one of the innate parts of everyday life like walking and breathing. That is, they often think that people speak words rather than metalinguistic theories.
Nevertheless, I would say that language is a conditioned stimulus rather than an unconditioned one, which contradicts the point right above. This is because language, when parts of it come to our minds, acquires meanings and emotional weight through repeated associations with experiences, responses, social reinforcements and such over time. I would like to use an example to illustrate this: there were two children who are both Vietnamese born in Vietnam, one lived in Vietnam ever since and the other moved to and lived in Russia at and since a very young age (likely a few months old). If no Vietnamese interference was present for the one living in Russia, that child mostly would speak Russian rather than Vietnamese because of their Russian environment and surroundings.Second, education systems around the world often prioritise these three aspects of language: (1) grammar, vocabulary and syntax; (2) standardised and prescriptive usage; and, (3) “correct” answers over conceptual exploration. That is, rarely do they invite students to reflect on why languages are the way they are and/or how language emerges from shared ideologies, values, mental frameworks, trains of thoughts (implied) and various other related aspects.
I would further explain the point (and perhaps reason) like this, briefly: this is likely to adapt to the ‘survival’ instinct of humans, which usually favours cognitive shortcuts and patterns over deep thinking. Then, this also stems from the typically unconscious doing of many: saving brain power and brain energy.Third, many societies around the world have become materialist in worldview: they tend to focus on what is tangible, measurable and utilitarian. Language, however, is an idealist product, despite the fact that many may not be able to comprehend and/or acknowledge this: it was born from shared mental concepts and it reflects invisible structures (eg morality, hierarchy, imagination, myth, faith and such) in each cultural background. This understanding typically requires a level of abstract, philosophical awareness that not everyone is taught and/or trained to develop, and this is quite similar to my brief reasoning for the second point above.Fourth, because language is usually passed down culturally, it often reflects unspoken assumptions, the phenomenon called “common sense” for example, which makes many of us experience language as a social habit and/or norm instead of an idea-based creation. For instance, the word ‘freedom’ in one language might carry cultural ideals not easily translated to any other language, and grammatical genders in many languages often reflect older ideologies of their places of origin and/or use about the world rather than “objective truths”. This is highly prominent in the differences and contrasts between Christian and Buddhist ideologies.Next, many individuals around the world often see language as a tool for communication, not as a lens through which we construct reality. Nonetheless, many philosophers and linguists (eg Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee Whorf, Lev Vygotsky and many others) argued this: we do not just use language to describe the world, we also use it to perceive, categorise and even limit it so that it can fit well into each of our own individual frameworks.Finally, this view itself is currently (this book is/was written in 2024-2025) less common in mainstream society. That is, at this moment, unless someone studies and/or is curious about linguistics, philosophy of language, cognitive science and/or critical theory, they are unlikely to reflect on the ideological nature of language.In sum, many people among us often do not comprehend and/or acknowledge that language is a product of ideas and idealism mainly because of factors related to deeply ingrained traits and feelings, education, the uncommonness of abstract thinking, deeply ingrained cultures and ideologies, perspectives related to practicality and a lack of reason(s) and/or opportunity/ies to do so.