And are all languages (math, set theory, whistling, English, Chinese, etc) somewhat inter-translatable? I'm sorry for the broad/overreaching question.

Is this something some philosophers agree on, many philosophers? It's my predilection to equate all language on some level, maybe as tools that provide meaning for a specific area of inquiry. And since most/all languages can be translated to any other to a degree, I wonder if the same world can be understood in vastly different ways.

And that since everything is related (i.e. part of the world), no vantage/understanding is privileged beyond being better at some task.

Here is a more mathy take on my question. I have lifted this from MathOverflow for my own purposes: "Yoneda's lemma [works] like this: You work at a particle accelerator. You want to understand some particle. All you can do are throw other particles at it and see what happens. If you understand how your mystery particle responds to all possible test particles at all possible test energies, then you know everything there is to know about your mystery particle." https://mathoverflow.net/questions/3184/philosophical-meaning-of-the-yoneda-lemma/3223 No fired particle or language provides the sole description; each particle or language provides it's own interaction with the mystery, and you learn from within your known particle/language. Each language captures how each possible interaction plays out within the language. Therefore there is some kind of equivalence, and no one language claims primacy.

  • 1
    This sounds like Fodor's language of thought hypothesis to me that "elicited too many objections to cover in a single encyclopedia entry", as SEP put it. But something weaker, called (mental) propositionalism, that every intentional attitude is propositional, is "widely accepted by analytic philosophers and semanticists" even according to detractors, see Montague, Against Propositionalism. Closely related is intellectualism about knowledge.
    – Conifold
    Commented Nov 25, 2021 at 9:49
  • 1
    A classical work that expresses a view of relative perspectives and intertranslatability somewhat similar to yours is Davidson, On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme:"we probably ought to hold that a form of activity that cannot be interpreted as language in our language is not speech behavior." But some languages are clearly expressively richer than others, and can capture multiple "particle interactions", while others cannot. This is so with or without a "master language" to rule them all.
    – Conifold
    Commented Nov 25, 2021 at 10:14
  • 1
    See the book 'The Geography of Thought' by Richard Nisbett. also philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/78520/… Commented Nov 25, 2021 at 12:01
  • 1
    You are familiar with Sapir-Whorf? Here I've collected some less common refs. More distant from the modern mainstream Four gradations of communication (equivalently language) in Indian philosophy which can help nuance your question (perhaps)
    – Rushi
    Commented Nov 28, 2021 at 2:58
  • 1
    @Rusi-packing-up Thank you (and other commenters). I am unfamiliar with all of this. It will take me awhile to process. Much appreciated for the terms, links, and suggestions.
    – J Kusin
    Commented Nov 28, 2021 at 4:39


You must log in to answer this question.