Linguistic Rebel

By: Jonathan Seidel

Language curing totalitarian idealism

Faur argues that Greek rational-idealism divided philosophy and rhetoric, displacing the conversion of both into separate realms. A word representing a thing is ruptured. The continuity disrupted by an intellectualised exercise. Philosophical supremacy proves the universalist strand of integrity. It is a categorised model in hope of maintaining a singular abstraction. There is a coronary monism to truth. It is a narrow minded mindset convincing the world of accuracy. This model is quite evident in both the Greek and German world. 

The Jewish model then and now is to repair that rupture. To connect the word to the thing. To demonstrate truth by culture and particularism. Rhetoric is a tool to determine understanding. It is not a coercive rationality but a reasonable explanation. The Jewish model attempts to convey meaning by emphasising the terminology of the object. Language is essential in dividing the object per culture. The method of interpretation is subjective and yet fulfilling. It is about pluralistic engagement, not conformity.

The linguistic turn was inevitably a response to idealism. Both in antiquity and in modernity. The universalist hellenisation excluded otherness. It was hellenism or nothing. Writing became evident in the sectarian society late in the second temple period. The pharisees remained truthful to the oral culture but turned to exegetical formulations to cope with the hellenistic opposition. Sadducees went as far as writing down their laws and deducing them from scripture. Combating hellenism with further legalism entertained a concentration on language. Exegesis is a fundamental articulation of language. Exegesis was not solely a model of perpetuity but also an ideological thrust as well. Exegesis is proscribed by an individual, subjectively proposed by a scholar. Representing the philosophical conclusion following the language. The word/statement correlates something deeper. It is aligning with a diverse element. Any scholar could deduce a divergent strand of interpretation. It is not about objectivity but authenticity.  

The multiplicity bursting forth from subjective interpretation arrives in the form of cultural affiliation. The layered disposition concurs with a relativistic acceptance. The formal unity to one imposed doctrine is outside the linguistic family. Language is associated with identity. The diverse lingos hint to a deeper metamorphosis that discounts regulated heteronomy. The manner of precipitated flourishing is amounted to the linguistic dialogue. It is not the lexicology but the emphasis and placement. It is not the words themselves but their association. 

Language is an articulation of the self. It enhances the cultural affinities and identifies the individualisation and particularism of society. Each tribe has their own methods and it through those methods that humanity develops. The concept of trade is synonymous as someone produces a better grain than the other and then the trade enables both to grow. It is not for one to commit to a singular goal but to pursue a vision that furthers the autonomy of man. 

The monistic monolingual model asserts absolute acceptance. Deriding any form of other in the process of accumulation. The fortitude is guaranteed by communicative reliability. Monolithic identity is afraid of otherness. Otherness sprouts by expression. It is as simple as speaking a different language. Language represents cultural roots. Babel is the falsehood of idealism. It sucks in the totality without alteration. It is difference that gives rise to greater hope. Linguistic focus is only necessary in a post-babel world. The coercive hellenistic culture pushed greek on everyone. Yet, once all are greek the lexicology is useless. Language becomes a dying study. This is a tragedy. The method expression given diverse backgrounds unites man in a shared universe. It is an imposed reality but a nurtured one.   

Babel is the cosmic primordial idealism. The rupture of the logos was completed in a uniform mission to conquer God. The uniform ideology encompassed singularity and monism. Its selfish homogeneity  proscribed a simple model of life. There is a compulsion to insinuate a rhetorical strategy to maintain equality over oligarchy. Yet, this political movement is hellbent on pursuing a fascist lifestyle. The ideology is encrypted and stale. The encoded framework is unchangeable. Once the words are embedded with ideological rhetoric there is no altering them. Babel was a construction of monistic collaboration that inhabited diversity.

Babel must be deconstructed by offering plurality. Babel was a moment of utopian totalitarianism. They aspired to rise higher via some Orwellian stability. Instead of forcing others to conform they cultivated a monistic society. God’s response to this regime was to separate them with language To create differences and tribalism. Language is consequential to philosophy. It is meaningful context through varied mediums. Objects are not just symbolic but are infused with purpose. They are internalised as they roll off man’s tongue.  

The biblical story quickly speeds through the story. They had one language wanting to build a tower to the sky, God confuses them, they can’t understand each other, they call it Babel. God not only altered their lingo but scattered them all over the globe though this is probably a consequential statement than actuality. The irony of its placement follows the genealogies that explain how descendants by virtue of spreading around would develop commutative differences. A simple detour would to explain the terms: The “whole land” vs “whole world”. Universally there was difference but not amongst the people themselves. Internally its monistic and even imperialistic. The biblical story critiques the ancient empire as a flawed utopia. God’s immersion of language is a direct response to their narrow singularity. 

Rhetorically Babel had a single aim. Conquer God, become him, and reign supreme. United man can wreak havoc on the world. Suppressing otherness by centralising a figure to concentrate. In hellenised philosophy, rhetoric is about control. Babel mirrored Greece with technological advancement. On the surface it seems beautiful but just as Stalinist Russia, it was too good to be true. Social repression was the highlight of ensuring a surface equality. To ensure the masses remain committed to the cause group projects like building a tower facilitate a unified goal to maintain the status quo before people begin thinking for themselves. The recent communistic guise sheds more light on the ancient tale in passive terminology: “a nation of one”,  “the tongue of one” and “the aim of one”. Concluding each sentence in the passive tense indicates a tyrannical element, ruler, coercing society. 

Who is Abraham beyond his exegetical stories? The narratives link his heroism to the fall of Babel. Beyond the lore, the text teaches something new: God speaks to Abraham. This language correlates to leaving instead of staying put. To disperse from the mainland. Abraham heeds the call but unlike Babel does not rally troops. It is not a tyrannical coercion. He parts and “Lot went with him”. Abraham is a soloist following his dream if people wish to follow him, he is happy to guide. He quietly charts new paths by his actions not his words. Language is not just speaking but a method of expression. His first words are ‘wow Sarah you are beautiful’. In the sister episode, his wording is to maintain harmony. The Egyptian lingo is she’s beautiful take her to pharaoh. It’s a difference of values and perspective. Rhetoric is strategic but it is also an expression of one’s inner beliefs. The ensuing narrative is Abraham’s deal with Lot to part ways due to internal fighting. Abraham is about de-escalation and pursuing harmony. Abraham is generally more actions than words but his words supply immense meaning to his beliefs. His actions are the object of his linguistic orientation. 

Historically Babel meets the qualifications of the ancient world from the Mesopotamians to Egyptians to Assyrians. who imposed their model of reality on the world, similar to the greeks. At this point in time, speech and not philosophy was the centre of identity. Yet, speech itself is compatible with philosophy as correlating between the two. Though the preceding chapter notes a variety of languages and cultures, they were squashed by Mesopotamian might. The biblical defence against totalitarianism is against the empires who sought to diminish others with their model. 

These individualised methods construct law and lore. In Judaism, The Bible and most canonical books (with the exception of the Talmud which is quite close though) are written in the Hebrew language, the sacred tongue of Jews. Ironically for the Talmud, the Aramaic was the spoken language and acted freely as the hermeneutic for valuational progress. Subsequently, the return to Hebrew texts even if Jews did not primary speak Hebrew locally, when expressing their Jewishness they did. It is the deeper layer of lingo that spawns the orality and semiology, interconnecting the people and its heritage. The interface between cultures is furthered by discussing those differences in an effort to build something more beautiful.

Returning to the communistic ideology. Many Jews pushed for the revolution believing it would liberate them from torture. Yet, it forced them to abandon their heritage. You were only Russian. Its stark nationalism had no room for otherness—similar to the hellenistic model. The revolution turned tyranny wished to wipe out any Jewish remnant. Babel occurred millennia ago but the universalist ideas are still in play, unfortunately are becoming more and more dangerous in the democratic world with liberalism’s hostile take-over. The banishing and vanishing of diversity and disagreement is not simply the end of debate but also the end of tradition. The utopian dream is a farce that compels unitary surrender at the cost of one’s ontology. Linguistic appreciation is a primary opponent to totalitarianism yet a deep respect for said culture is necessary.