I am watching an insect fly in circles madly around the light above my head, which is funny because that is exactly how I wanted to speak about language. An idea struck me: why not start following definitions as through a maze? So I entered the labyrinth, trailing string behind me in case I needed to make a hasty escape. It’s nothing new to say that words can only be defined by more words. This is most obvious if you pick up a dictionary and start a journey through definitions. Many concepts collapse upon themselves immediately. My hypothesis is that language is not only a “labyrinth” from which one cannot escape, but this: every word is circular. More abstract concepts like “good” or “right” return to themselves quickly. God knows how long it would take an extensive experiment like this, but if someone could write an algorithm to do this on a computer, I would love to see its results.

You can imagine it. To take an answer from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” Obvious problems emerge here. For example, every word used to describe God is tautological. God, at least in the Judeo-Islamo-Christian conception, is by definition infinite — as are the terms “eternity” and “immutability.” The infinite is defined by the infinite, and the infinite is by definition in(de)finite—undefined.

A more obvious experiment would be to take a thesaurus, which is how people think anyway, and quickly find yourself going in circles. With a dictionary, you may never come back out the other side. The more specific a word is, the less likely you will return through that portal. For example, if you start with the Latin name for a pine tree, pinus radiata, you might come around again to the term “tree” but you probably won’t return to pinus radiata (if you do, let me know). Reality cannot be known by names, but it seems that all we do is name things.

Prior to any question of circular logic, there is the question of circular definitions, or at least that of infinite regression. Once you start to question definitions, where do you stop? Will you be able to follow the thread out of the labyrinth? That’s a question I can’t answer, but one hopefully some of you can for me.

A corresponding thought experiment is this: if you seek out the purity of concepts, you’ll find that etymologies will disappoint you, especially in the statement, “God is perfect.” Perfect, complete, and even good all come from words that contain the concept of coming-into-being. I challenge someone out there to find a word which means absolute perfection without the sense of having been made (per-fect, “to make complete”). Why the imposition of time on an eternal, infinite God? Our words are polluted—either theological terms with anthropological terms or vice-versa. Either way, our words overlap more than they should. But we can only think in terms of our own existence. Even if God exists “outside time” we would still only be able to talk about God in terms of our own existence. Since goodness is invariably tied up with activity in time, it is natural that an ascription of ethical purity to God would include the pollution of time. What’s the problem with giving time to God? Anything in time is changing, which quickly contracts the concept of an “unchangeable” God of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Isn’t it a curious thing that the Westminster Shorter Catechism concerns itself only with “what” God is and not “who” God is? All of God’s meaning comes from who he is, not what he is. God’s whatness is an unrelated disinterested thing. We are concerned with God’s whoness, his interest (inter-esse) in us. Of course, even speaking in terms of “being” with God places him in an intimate relationship with time. Is God first among beings or outside the category of being and time? Either God needs to be made fully chronological in his essence or freed from human imposition. The purity of our theological language must be questioned. There seems to be an effort to break “linguistic circles” of definitions by forcing God into a concept polluted with anthropological elements. Maybe we can only understand “God” through human terms, in which case we are long overdue for a revision of theological language.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.