A review of Heidegger's chapter on language and nature

Nature of Language / Heidegger

In "The Nature of Language" Heidegger (1982) posits that most people would say that they are close to language because they speak it -- but it is not that simple. He claims that our relation to language is "vague, obscure" -- and even -- "almost speechless" (p. 58). This notion makes our relationship to language much more complicated if we are to assume that what Heidegger says is correct. Not only is the idea complex, but it is nearly incomprehensible. Isn't language, after all, about speech? How can our relationship to it thus be something deemed as speechless? To complicate matters even further, Heidegger says that philosophers have come up with what is called "metalanguage" for which to use as the focus of their examination of different languages. Heidegger states: "Metalinguistics is the metaphysics of the thoroughgoing technicalization of all languages into the sole operative instrument of interplanetary information. Metalanguage and sputnik, metalinguistic and rocketry are the same" (1982, p. 58). While all of this may be so, and Heidegger notes that this type of examination into language is important, it doesn't mean that the experience of language is any less important.

How do we have an experience with language? While we may think that merely speaking words is equivalent to experiencing language, Heidegger (1982) insists that it is not the same at all. Language doesn't bring us to language, he argues, but rather it is a barrier for us, keeping us away from language. He claims that facts we speak about, things that happen to us, etc. are just things that we are speaking about, but not the true essence of language. So what is the true essence of language? According to Heidegger, the true essence of language, the true experience that is, hits us when we are, rather, at a loss for words. "Then we leave unspoken what we have in mind and, without rightly giving it thought, undergo moments in which language itself has distantly and fleetingly touch us with its essential being" (1982, p. 59).

This brings us to the poet. Is it the poet who is constantly putting him or her self in touch with the essential being of language? A poet is a servant of language and he or she uses language in order to serve a greater purpose than just speaking. When we listen to a poem we are listening to more than just mere words. When we read a poem we want to experience something else -- something much deeper than just words itself can give us.

This is why we listen more attentively where such an experience is put into lofty and noble language" (Heidegger, 1982, p. 62-63). The philosopher who investigates language is much like the poet, yet at the same time, very unlike the poet. Both serve language. The philosopher is a servant of language just as the poet is, but the difference between the two is in the way in which they serve it. A philosopher may be more interested in asking why or how questions about something whereas a poet is more likely to sing about something (Olivier, 2008). The philosopher, therefore, is an intruder in the poet's process. Philosophy can be poetic in its own way but only insofar as it reflects on it and doesn't try to be poetic as a poet would be. Poets, on the other hand, are able to reflect about nature without even the use of words. They use blank spaces and punctuation in order to "speak" to the reader or listener.