Understanding the Structure of Being – 7

The Challenge of Language: How Words Reinforce Illusion

Language is the medium through which we express, conceptualize, and communicate reality. Yet, it is also one of the greatest barriers to understanding the eternal structure of being. The very words we use are steeped in the assumption of becoming—of things arising, changing, and perishing. As it has evolved, language has reflected and reinforced the illusion that reality is in flux.

This article explores how language obscures the recognition of necessity and eternity, making it difficult to articulate the truth of being. If the fundamental error of Western thought is the belief in nothingness, then language is its most persistent accomplice.

How Language Encodes the Illusion of Becoming

Our everyday speech is structured around concepts that assume change and non-being. Consider the following common expressions:

• “Something comes into existence” (implying it was not before).
• “An event passes away” (implying it ceases to be).
• “Things could have been different” (assuming an alternative that never was).
• “I made a decision” (implying an act of bringing something new into being).

Each of these statements presupposes that reality is malleable, that things are contingent, and that non-being plays a role in existence. Yet if being is eternal, none of these statements reflect what truly is.

The Limits of Human Speech

Philosophy and theology alike have struggled with the inadequacy of language to express the eternal. Every attempt to describe being risks falling back into terms that imply becoming. Even negations—such as saying “nothingness does not exist”—still invoke nothingness as if it were something to be negated.

Some traditions, recognizing this problem, have resorted to paradoxical or negative language:

• Mysticism often describes reality through negation (“not this, not that”) to avoid false assumptions.
• Eastern thought sometimes regards silence as a more accurate approach to ultimate truth.
• Metaphysical philosophy has sought new terms and frameworks to escape the trap of becoming.

Yet even these strategies are imperfect. Thought itself is conditioned by the linguistic structures available to it.

Philosophy’s Struggle with Language

Emanuele Severino, in unveiling the necessity of being, also confronted the challenge of expressing it within a language steeped in the assumptions of becoming. He recognized that conventional ways of speaking inevitably smuggle in contradictions, yet language remains the only tool available to communicate truth. His work reveals the necessity of rigorously reformulating our use of terms to avoid reinforcing illusion.

One of the most common linguistic distortions occurs in discussions of time and causality. Words like “before,” “after,” “cause,” and “effect” all carry implicit assumptions of a movement from non-being to being. This is why causality had to be addressed before this article—because our very means of discussing it tend to distort its real structure.

Can a New Language Be Formed?

Given these difficulties, can we construct a language that fully expresses the eternal nature of being? Some attempts have been made, but they remain partial solutions:

• Mathematical and logical notation can remove some ambiguity but cannot replace natural language in daily discourse.
• Poetic and symbolic expressions can hint at truth but often lack precision.
• Reformulating common terms (such as speaking of the “appearing” of events rather than their “coming into being”) helps but does not completely resolve the problem.

Ultimately, while language will always have limitations, awareness of its distortions allows us to navigate them. The key is to use words consciously, recognizing the implicit assumptions they carry and, when necessary, redefining them to better reflect reality.

From Language to Religion: The Role of Theological Concepts

Nowhere is the struggle with language more evident than in religious thought. The doctrines of creation, divine will, and providence have been shaped by linguistic structures that assume becoming. The concept of a God who “creates from nothing” (creatio ex nihilo) presupposes a movement from non-being to being—yet if nothingness is impossible, how can this be reconciled?

This is the next great challenge: If being is eternal and necessary, how does this affect our understanding of God, creation, and religious truth?

In the next article, Religion and the Eternal: Creation, God, and Necessity, we will examine how theological thought has struggled with the problem of becoming and why the recognition of eternity does not oppose but rather deepens the understanding of the divine.