Communication In Depth and Shallow; Discourse as Skill

Logical positivism rejects metaphysics in our material reality and insists upon empirical verification; and the philosophical and spiritual arguments are founded upon discourse. So then it must be asked, can truth ever be known without language? Kierkegaard, with his focus on subjective experience, would likely dismiss this as a reductio ad absurdum, however I would argue quite the reverse. For him, the language of faith is not bound by the limitations of empirical observation; it transcends the material world and speaks to the soul in ways that no scientific instrument can measure. However, this faith described as a leap is no more than the faith given to every worshipped god in history or prehistory. Is this not the thing, though? If the thinker becomes (https://24k.cc/issue/202400-s2i0/), then language and its activities have the most profound effects upon the mind which enable the sorts of communication empowering philosophy and spiritual discourse, as well as all beautiful writings and all worthy education.

Here again we find Kierkegaard at odds with both logical positivism and manteic theory. The manteic framework acknowledges imperfections of language but sees them as necessity, a limit of language itself, and of no consequence to the absoluteness of the universe. Our imperfect descriptions and organisation versus the order in the universe is a constant reminder that human understanding is always provisional, imperfect, and ultimately mortal. Logical positivism, by contrast, seeks to ameliorate these imperfections in as much as possible through strict verification, while Kierkegaard embraces the imperfection as condemnation of the absolutes.

The embrace of subjectivity for itself leads away from the shared objective reality within which we may have fruitful discourse. Our subjective internal reality, rather, is as reflective of the absolutes beyond the material insofar as we have accepted this absoluteness of universal order. However if truth is merely personal experience, then how can we ever speak of anything? What depth could avail itself to the person without depth? The manteic theory offers a way forward: by recognising that both the subjective imagination and positivist reason are limited but complementary and interdependent, we avoid the trap of solipsism. For instance, how could new definitions in language gain greater accuracy without an imagination rooted more firmly in the reality than the original words? A language and science that cannot adapt to these more detailed comprehensions is stilted and becomes stagnant. Kierkegaard, in his rejection of objective knowledge, seems to have fallen into this very trap, but the reverse, by reducing truth to a private, internal experience that cannot be shared or verified, nor corrective for this progress in greater definition.