Language, Identity, and Universal Concepts in Philosophy
Language as a Pre-Existing Sphere
A key moment comes when Socrates asks: “Is he Greek, and does he speak Greek?” This is not merely about communication—it suggests that dialogue depends on a shared conceptual world. Language exists before we speak it; it is a system of meaning passed through generations. To speak, then, is to step into a timeless structure in which the present is shaped by the accumulated memory of the past. Language—and by extension writing—becomes a vessel of collective memory.
The Tower of Babel: Fragmentation of Speech
In this story, all humans once shared a single language. As they grew ambitious—“Let us build a city and a tower with its top in the heavens”—God responded by confusing their speech and dispersing them across the earth. Babel thus becomes both a literal moment of linguistic division and a metaphor for human fragmentation.
Consequences and Interpretations of Babel
The term “Babel” plays on sound; it mimics the Greek word barbaroi, used to denote foreign or incomprehensible speech (“blah blah blah”). The phrase “let us make a name for ourselves” suggests moral autonomy (autonomos), contrasting with divine law (heteronomos). Some interpret the Tower of Babel as a warning against cultural monoliths—one language, one name, one order—as inherently authoritarian. Philosopher Barbara Cassin sees this as a “terrible inheritance,” while literature, with its diversity of voices and translations, becomes the “beautiful ruin” of Babel—a defense against uniformity through multiplicity.
Philosophy and the Nature of Language
The second part of this unit centers on a core philosophical issue: What is language, and how does it relate to our ability to know? Using Kant’s framework—“What can I know?”, “What must I do?”, “What may I hope?”—this section focuses on the first: epistemology and expression.
Distinguishing Language from Speech
We must differentiate:
- Language (lenguaje): the universal human faculty for symbolic communication.
- Languages (lenguas): specific linguistic systems like Spanish or English, shaped by culture and history.
The Bridge Theory and Tautology
The “bridge theory” proposes that realities like language, color, or love are not located solely in the mind or in the external world—they occupy an in-between space. As Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” Yet, explaining language through language leads to tautology: a circular effort where the explanation depends on the very thing being explained.
Language as Dialogue and Community
Speech is inherently dialogic. To speak is always to speak to or with someone. Language presumes shared understanding. Even silent thought occurs in linguistic form, making language essential for intersubjective experience. This introduces the idea of linguistic communities, and the concept of the “barbarian” as someone excluded from a shared language. Terms like “mother tongue” or “natural language” are cultural myths—they refer to learned systems, not biological givens.
Language and Its Historical Forms
Language (in general) differs from languages (in particular). The former is a universal capacity; the latter are concrete historical expressions. Language does not simply name things; it does not operate like a label applied to a preexisting reality. Rather, it helps shape how we access and perceive reality itself.
For example, “cat” does not resemble a feline; neither do “gato” or “chat.” All are culturally constructed signs.
Clear-Confused Knowledge and Creativity
Leibniz pointed out that our knowledge of language is “clear but confused”: we use it expertly but struggle to explain it clearly. Even linguists find it hard to pin down what language really is. It is fluid, inventive, and always evolving. Using the Greek concept of energeia, language is described as an enacted process—not a fixed capacity, but something that unfolds in real use, like a seed growing into a tree. Meaning is actualized in each unique act of speech, shaped by the speaker, context, emotion, and culture. Each utterance is creative. Language, like art or science, is an open-ended practice—not a closed system.
Language and the Nature of Signs
Language operates through signs, each made up of:
- The signifier: the form, such as a word or sound.
- The signified: the concept it refers to.
But signs are more than labels. They belong to systems of meaning, shaped by usage, history, and social context.
Words like “truth” or “homeland” don’t have fixed meanings. Their significance is cultural and historical. Language doesn’t merely describe what exists—it makes it intelligible in the first place.
Language is therefore the foundation for concepts like truth and existence. It allows such distinctions to even be possible.
Logos Semantikos and Propositional Logos
Aristotle identifies two types of logos:
- Logos semantikos: a pre-linguistic structure of meaning and intent.
- Propositional logos: full statements that can be affirmed or denied, and thus judged as true or false.
For example, “donkeys fly” is a grammatically valid sentence even if untrue. This demonstrates that language precedes empirical verification. It enables the expression of both truth and falsehood.
Identity: An Introduction to Selfhood
John Locke offers a classic definition in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), stating: “A person is a thinking and intelligent being… who considers itself to be the same thinking thing in different times and places because it has consciousness.” For Locke, consciousness is the key to personal identity. The capacity to reflect on one’s thoughts, desires, and actions across time allows us to recognize ourselves as the same individual, even as our physical form changes. This perspective defines personal identity as the continuity of consciousness, not merely the continuity of body or soul. Metaphysical identity refers to something being the same as itself and not something else. Personal identity over time matters in moral, legal, and existential debates: e.g., Who is responsible for an action? Who inherits property? Does identity survive death? While common sense often relies on physical markers (like appearance or DNA), some philosophers, such as René Descartes, have argued for an enduring immaterial soul. Locke instead highlights memory and psychological continuity as the core of identity.
Social Identity and Psychological Models
From the field of social psychology comes Social Identity Theory, which explores how people understand themselves both as individuals and as members of groups. This influences how we behave and how we define who we are. This leads to a reframed philosophical question: Not just “Am I still the same person?” but “What defines identity?” To approach this, we examine how people throughout history have depicted and understood themselves, focusing on different cultural and historical expressions of personhood.
The Search for Identity: Cultural and Literary Approaches
Greek Theatre and the Invention of Persona
The Greeks were the first to stage human identity, inventing the dramatic genres of tragedy and comedy. From Homeric epics to Athenian drama dedicated to Dionysus, Greek society explored human dilemmas through theatrical characters. The amphitheater became a public arena for examining identity. In the 6th century BCE, Thespis introduced a character who interacted with the chorus—creating the first dramatic persona. The actor (hypokrites—the root of “hypocrite”) played a role separate from himself. Thus, the theatrical mask was born—a device symbolizing the tension between being and appearing. The mask amplified the voice (persona means “that which sounds through”) and defined the character. This theatrical heritage suggests a profound paradox: We are both who we are and the roles we perform.
From Persona to Personal Identity
Over time, “person” came to mean more than just a theatrical role—it referred to the innermost essence of the self. Yet the unit poses a compelling question: Is identity something we create imaginatively, or something seen in us by others?
Influential Thinkers on Personhood
- Augustine of Hippo redefined the term “person” in his Trinitarian theology: three persons in one God—each distinct, yet united. This had profound implications for interiority, especially in relationships like love, parenthood, and otherness.
- Boethius described a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” This idea formed a bridge between theology and metaphysics.
These thinkers laid the groundwork for personalism, a philosophical tradition that highlights the value of personhood above individualism or collectivism. Literature and drama were essential in expressing and expanding these insights.
Tragedy, Character, and Human Types
In Greek tragedy, identity was tied to fate. Each figure—Antigone, Oedipus, Achilles—was not only an individual but a type, representing a particular mode of being in the world. These “types” offered a model for interpreting identity through narrative, conflict, and destiny.
Aristotle’s Poetics and Homer’s Epics
In his Poetics, Aristotle argued that fiction is more philosophically true than history because it reveals universal truths through action (praxis). Homer’s Odyssey serves as a perfect example of this philosophical journey: Odysseus’s return is not just geographical—it is existential. Odysseus must navigate a variety of roles—son, father, lover, outsider, and hero—each revealing a different dimension of his identity. His voyage is a deep meditation on what it means to return and to be oneself.
The Odyssey and the Recognition of Identity
Penelope and the Loom of Memory
While Odysseus struggles with physical trials, Penelope enacts her own silent heroism. She weaves and unweaves a burial shroud, symbolizing hope, resistance, and suspended time. Her action keeps the suitors at bay while she awaits her husband’s return. Penelope’s intelligence mirrors Odysseus’s. Her weaving becomes a symbol of memory and identity—linked to death (the shroud) and night (when she undoes her work).
Recognition (Anagnorisis) and the Sign (Sema)
When Odysseus returns, he is not instantly recognized. True identity is revealed only through a sign: the old nurse Eurycleia sees a childhood scar. This moment recalls ancient themes:
- The body as a marker of identity.
- The past becoming present through memory and signs.
- Anagnorisis as a dramatic and philosophical turning point.
Later, Penelope tests him by suggesting their marriage bed be moved. Odysseus objects, knowing the bed is built into an olive tree and cannot be moved. This rooted bed becomes a symbol of stable identity and marital truth.
The Endless Journey of Identity
However, Odysseus’s story doesn’t end with his return. The prophet Tiresias predicted he would travel again to a place where people mistake an oar for a winnowing fan. This journey toward the unknown signifies an identity that will be tested beyond recognition. The line: “Indeed, it was the tree, on which the bed was built, that had roots, and not Odysseus,” captures this idea. It challenges the notion of a fixed self. For Odysseus—and for us—identity is never complete. It is shaped by loss, exile, memory, and encounter.
A First Approach to the Question of Universals
Philosophy and Language Revisited
Understanding abstract philosophical problems begins with the distinction between language as a universal capacity and speech as its specific usage. Language precedes speech both structurally and functionally. Although its true essence remains difficult to define, language plays a central role: it allows meaning to be made intelligible. Drawing on Wilhelm von Humboldt, language is conceived as energeia—not a finished product, but an active force, a creative process rather than a fixed object. There is a deep connection between language and thought. Idealist traditions argue that everything we express—commands, emotions, ideas—must first take form in thought. Thus, language is not only expressive but inherently rational.
Aristotle distinguishes between logos semantikos—the meaningful structure of thought that exists before language—and propositional logos, which includes statements that can be affirmed or denied. This helps explain how thinking can exist before it is spoken, yet inevitably seeks expression.
This raises a key question: is language merely a functional tool, like animal communication systems? The answer is no. Human language cannot be reduced to utility—it possesses intention and meaning; it expresses and creates simultaneously. Language uses signs, which are dual by nature:
- The signifier: the sound or written symbol.
- The signified: the mental concept it represents.
This dual structure allows language to move beyond instinctual reactions. It becomes a medium of symbolic abstraction. Yet, even with this connection, words and concepts are not identical. Some realities—like being—resist full articulation in language. A basic paradox follows: to say “language is” is to use language to define something that exists prior to it.
The Problem of Universals
The problem of universals stems from the need to explain how we categorize and understand the world.
Socrates first tackled this concept, drawing inspiration from geometry, which simplified chaos into ideal forms. He extended this model into ethics: turning varied behaviors into general principles like justice, courage, and moderation. His goal, like that of geometry, was to reveal rational explanations (logos) behind categories of human action.
The idea of logos evolved in several key directions:
- In Socrates, logos is the rational account of a concept.
- In Christian theology, it becomes the Word of God, as seen in the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.”
- In Plato, logos shifts from moral reasoning to ontological explanation.
Plato, building on Parmenides, expanded this reasoning to encompass all reality. Parmenides claimed, “what is, is,” and “what is not, is not,” introducing the principle of non-contradiction, which made systematic knowledge possible. He believed that only what is logically consistent and intelligible can truly exist; the sensory world, by contrast, is deceptive.
Plato transforms this into his Theory of Ideas (Forms):
- Ideas are eternal, perfect, and intelligible entities.
- Physical objects are flawed reflections or methexis (participation) in these ideal forms.
No material triangle, for instance, perfectly captures the geometric idea of a triangle—just as no action fully embodies perfect justice or beauty.
This leads to a division between two realms:
- The world of appearances: changeable, imperfect.
- The world of Ideas: unchanging, ideal.
True knowledge requires ascending from the sensory to the intelligible. Plato describes this ascent through experiences like love, beauty, and madness, ultimately arriving at the Idea of the Good, which illuminates all others.
Aristotle’s Critique and the Theory of Substance
Aristotle challenges Plato’s separation of two worlds. He argues that there is only one world, and we must understand it by analyzing substance, essence, and accident—categories that explain both stability and change.
- Substance is what exists independently and underlies properties.
- Essence includes the core attributes without which something would not be what it is.
Accidents are features that can change without affecting the thing’s identity. Using a glass as an example: Its substance (glasshood) remains whether it’s full or empty. Its accidents (temperature, color, fullness) may vary. For Aristotle, individual substances are real—not imperfect shadows of Ideas, but actual beings. Socrates, for instance, is one individual made up of essential and accidental traits. If he ages or loses weight, he remains Socrates. Language, then, helps name and categorize these real entities. However, it is also conventional: the word “cat” has no intrinsic link to the animal—it points to it through social usage. In naming, we move from individual reality to universal understanding: the term “cat” applies to all cats, regardless of individual difference.
Realism and Empiricism: Theories of Universals
This section surveys medieval and scholastic responses to the universal problem: Do universals actually exist? Are they just mental tools or convenient names?
Four primary theories emerge:
Realism (Plato)
Universals exist independently of things (universalia ante rem). They are necessary for both existence and understanding. Universals are eternal, metaphysical realities.
Nominalism
Universals are only names (universalia post rem). They are abstract mental shortcuts without real existence. Only individual entities truly exist—universals are linguistic conventions.
Moderate Realism (Aristotle and Augustine)
Universals exist within things. They are real, but not separate from particulars. They are formal elements of specific beings. Augustine believed these forms originated in divine archetypes.
Conceptualism (Peter Abelard)
- Universals exist not in the world but in the mind—as structured concepts.
- They are more than mere sounds, but not independent entities either.
- Conceptualism denies nominalism by affirming that ideas are real components of cognition.
Each view attempts to reconcile how general terms (like “justice,” “tree,” or “truth”) can refer to individual cases, while preserving the integrity of both thought and experience.