The True Language of Understanding Doesn’t Need Words
We often mistake the inability to speak about an experience for an inability to understand it.
Philosopher John Shand challenges the modern and Buddhist approach to the ineffable—that which cannot be spoken of. Some thinkers, like Graham Priest, suggest we must embrace contradictions to solve the paradox of describing the indescribable. However, Shand argues this is a desperate and unnecessary measure.
The error lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to “know” something. We falsely assume that understanding requires linguistic articulation. But do you need a scientific paper to understand the feeling of the wind on your face?
Shand distinguishes between referencing an experience and articulating its nature. We can name the ineffable—love, the beauty of a sunset, the sensation of time passing—but we cannot fully articulate the “what-it-is-like” of these things. Yet, we understand them deeply.
True understanding comes not from words, but from evocation, demonstration, and direct experience. Art, music, or a simple kiss conveys truths that language cannot touch. By realizing that understanding is often non-linguistic, the need to abandon logic dissolves. The ineffable remains silent, but it is not a mystery; it is the richest part of our lived reality.
No Comments