Language and Meaning

In addition, the relationship between language and meaning related to knowledge.

Lao Tzu was the first philosopher who discussed the relationship between language and meaning. For instance, the ineffableness of Tao:

The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name. (Lao Tzu, Chapter 1)

The discordance between language and meaning, or the virtuality of language:

The smartest seems clumsy; the most eloquent seems taciturn. (Chapter 45)

One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know. (Chapter 56)

What sounds pleasant is unbelievable; what sounds unpleasant is believable. (Chapter 81)

Confucius held similar view: "A gentleman should be cautious in speech and diligent in action." (The Analects, Li Ren) Here we notice how ancient Chinese philosophers viewed language: Language was used to express thoughts and form should not be overstated.

Chuang Tzu developed the thoughts on the relationship between language and meaning. Chuang Tzu also considered that language could not express the abstract Tao: "Tao cannot be heard. What can be heard is not Tao. Tao cannot be seen. What can be seen is not Tao. Tao cannot be spoken. What can be spoken is not Tao." (Chuang Tzu, Knowledge Rambling in the North) Fei Qi summarized Chuang Tzu's thought into three aspects: The abstract language cannot express the concrete objects; the unchangeable idea cannot express the change; the limited idea cannot express the unlimited meaning' . Besides, Chuang Tzu believed that language could not express human's experience in mind. In Chuang Tzu, there was a story recorded:

Lun Bian said. Wood is cut to made wheel. If the wheel hole is wide, the wheel will loosen; if the wheel hole is narrow, the spoke will not enter. Only when the wheel hole neither wide nor narrow will the wheel work well. 1 can understand but cannot express the rule. I cannot clearly tell it to my son, and my son cannot learn it from I. (The Heavenly Tao)

In fact, it was common that one knew something but could not express . More importantly, Chuang Tzu firstly discussed the nature of language-meaning issue:

Fish tackle is used to catch fish. Man forgets it after he catches fish. Net is used to catch rabbit. Man forgets it after he catches rabbit. Language is used to express thought. Man forgets it after he obtains the meaning. (The External Objects)

To Chuang Tzu, language would be useless after it had expressed thought. Later, in Commentaries on Book of Change, it was summarized as "Language and word cannot accurately express thought." (Xi Ci I)

In Wei and Jin Dynasties, Wang Bi expresses new views based on Chuang Tzu and Commentaries on Book of Change:

Phenomenon expresses the idea. Language expresses the phenomenon... Therefore, language clarifies phenomenon, and one forgets language after he understands the phenomenon; phenomenon indicates the idea, and one forgets phenomenon after he obtains the idea. This resembles that the net is on the rabbit, but the man has caught the rabbit and forgotten the net, and that the fish tackle is on the fish, but the man has caught the fish and forgotten the fish tackle... One forgets the phenomenon as he has obtained the idea; one forgets the language, as he has understood the phenomenon. One obtains the idea only when he has forgotten the idea and the phenomenon only when he has forgotten the phenomenon. (Brief Interpretations of Book of Change, Elucidating the Image)

Chuang Tzu viewed that one should obtained idea first before he forgot language, whereas Wang Bi viewed that one should forget language first before he obtained the idea. Wang Bi subverted Chuang Tzu's view. Although there was obvious mistake in his view, Wang Bi deconstructed the dependence on language. Later, Zeng Zhao descried prajna (Bo Re, wisdom) in the similar way: "The most profound wisdom cannot be clearly expressed through language and phenomenon." (On the Unspeakableness of Prajna) In short, ancient Chinese philosophers had taken dialectical outlook on language: language could express and restrict thought, although there was mysterious color in their thoughts.