Gadamer suggests in Chapter two (“On the Problem of Self-Understanding”) of Philosophical Hermeneutics that everything we learn is the result of language (56). He goes on to further his point by saying that we play language games to learn and understand the world around us, and words help us understand the meanings of things. He also suggests that language is malleable. One can change the meaning of a word. Although I believe to some extent this idea to be true, I think that suggesting that language is the key to everything is incredibly problematic.

We are constrained by language. My knowledge in language helps and restrains me in writing this response, for example. Language is of incredible significance to understanding. However, language is not everything. Suggesting that language exists and is the only key to knowing and understanding is completely impossible. How would languages have begun if we were only able to understand through language? Certainly we must have feelings that help shape the way we understand. We ascribe names to things that bear significance, not the other way around.

By Gadamer’s theory, we would not be able to feel something completely indescribable. He allows us the idea that language may be malleable, but this is only dependent on our ability to create language. If we are able to create language, we cannot only understand by being in a world of language.

-Melissa