On the Existence of Words (Metaphysics)

The fish trap exists because of the fish.  Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap.  The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit.  Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.  Words exist because of meaning.  Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.  Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?  (~ Chuang  Tzu)

When I read the list of Serious Quotes for the first time, I found it rather curious to come across Chuang Tzu.

Mainly because he was the only Eastern name between all the Western names I read.

Never have I heard of him before, nor am I familiar with his works and his philosophy.

I thought to myself, how can I ever write an essay about him?

Firstly because I assume the original language was Chinese.

That’s where the problem already began. 

The real essence of a philosophical quote loses its value the moment it has been translated.

What I am reading right now in English, is a broken version of the original language.

The real essence of his thoughts have been lost in translation.

How can I even comment on a quote that has lost his real value and meaning?

It can easily be compared with Plato’s Dialogues.

The moment the original Greek is translated to English (or any other language for that matter), the originality and the real essence of the dialogues get lost.

Never can someone translate the Greek word pronèsis to its original meaning and content.

So my problem is, that language is a mean of a group of people to communicate.

Language is something subjective gained by empirical observation.

The words we use daily are the results of subjective and empirical observation of our environment.

I see my environment differently, the people who created the language I use today see it differently than Chuang Tzu did.

We can never fully understand the essence, because our words just are slightly different in subjectivity and observation of our reality.

The only logical thing for me would be to start learning Chinese to understand the essence of Chuang Tzu’s philosophy.

However since it’s obviously time consuming, I will continue my essay commenting on the content of the quote rather than the language or origin. 

I have stated before that I am not familiar with Eastern philosophy, my interpretation may differ from that of student who is, in fact, familiar with it.

This said, I will comment on the quote using my Western philosophy that I have gained until now, because after all that’s what I am familiar with.

I can already say that it’s a rather curious encounter of two different worlds coming together. 

Due to the lack of context can I never imagine in what circumstances Chuang Tzu has spoken these words.

The logic behind it is rather clear; something exists because of something else. When you have it, you can forget the means.

A philosophical quote that is rather easy to follow.

The slow and easy structure gives a nice example of what he means using daily objects as reference.

The fish trap exists because of the fish.  Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. 

It begins with an easy construction, using something the student or reader is familiar with so he or she doesn’t feel lost in Chuang Tzu’s philosophy right away.

The idea gets repeated again so the reader fully can associate with the thought, once again with something they’re familiar with and that is outside of themselves so it’s less abstract and easier to follow; namely a rabbit trap. 

With the previous two comparisons in their head it suddenly reaches its climax:

Words exist because of meaning.  Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. 

The similarity between the fish trap and words sounds so logical, because of the same structure used again, that it causes the reader to follow along with the conclusion:

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

This is rather fascinating but also very confusing.

How can someone talk without words?

The reader goes back and forth.

Reads the lines again.

Compares the sentences.

Nevertheless the structure in both sentences causes the reader to think that Chuang Tzu is right, leaving the conclusion open to debate.

And this is where it gets interesting;

Chuang Tzu has left it at such an amazing cliffhanger that it causes the reader to think about it thoroughly.

If this was indeed his goal, he has reached it. 

It got me thinking.

How can these premises causes such a strange and still (so I thought at first) logical conclusion? 

Firstly,

The structure is so distracting that it takes the attention of the reader to the way it has been written, rather than the two totally different things being compared.

Looking at it thoroughly, and with that I mean only with your regard on the content and nothing else, the conclusion doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. 

I’ll expand on this.

In the quote means and goal are being compared.

The one is the means and it functions for a goal.

The fish trap exists because of the fish. 

The means is the fish trap.

The goal is the fish (or rather to catch fish).

Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap.

This is a very crucial sentence.

Take note that once you have gotten the fish you can forget the trap.

With other words:

Forgetting the trap has no further influence on the entity of the fish.

The same goes with the rabbit snare.

The interesting part begins when Chuang Tzu starts comparing it to words.

I’ll just use the same principal of analyzing the sentence.

Words exist because of meaning.   

The means are the words.

The goal is the meaning.

Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.

Referring to my past analysis, you can easily conclude that this sentence doesn’t make any sense.

The is no consistency with the previous statement made, which is sad because that’s the point of comparing two things.

Forgetting the words does have further influence on the meaning.

Why is that?

It’s stated in his conclusion.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? 

Forgetting the means backfires the goal.

Forgetting the means does have further influence on the goal, because it damages the entity of the goal.

Forgetting words will stop the spread of meaning, which is what Chuang Tzu is trying to get across.

He is contradicting himself so horribly by comparing these sentences, especially since his conclusion proves how inconsistent the quote actually is.

But to be honest.

After I was done analyzing it, it struck me that I couldn’t possibly possess more logic than an Eastern philosopher.

I am speculating on the off chance that Chuang Tzu might be aware of this flaw.

Even so that he did it on purpose, with as only goal to make his statement seem simple yet very powerful and impressive at the same time.

If you put all the logic aside and solely look at what he is trying to say, you can easily conclude that what he is trying to bring across is a simple yet very powerful idea that is understandable for everyone who is trying to follow his philosophy.

The idea behind it is very simple.

Where can I find a man who has achieved so much in life, that he understands the full meaning behind every single word?

Let me grab back on the beginning of my essay. 

As I said before words and meaning are connected to language, which is something you can gain by experiencing it.

When you see a flower, you experience and acknowledge its existence.

The object is then named using empirical observation.

Keeping that in mind, we can all conclude that someone who knows the meaning behind every word, to the extent that he has according to Chuang Tzu forgotten the words itself, has experienced a lot in life.

And that is the most crucial point Chuang Tzu is trying to bring across.

One must try to experience a lot in life to the extent that he understands the meaning behind every single word.