Object-Hood and Objectification in Buddhist Philosophy: Origin and Obstacle of Language

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that language is unfaithful to reality. This idea has been explored in various ways in the literature. Interestingly, a pair of antonymous terms, viz., subjectification and objectification, has been used to explain the unfaithfulness of language. Linguistic literature basically resorts to the term “subjectification” whereas Buddhist philosophy of language employs “objectification,” in their respective efforts to clarify the relation between language and reality. These two terms mainly differ in their presumption regarding the world, viz., whether there is an objective or real world without any human intervention. Under the framework of linguistic philosophy, it is generally agreed that there is an objective world out there for human beings to explore and understand. By contrast, Buddhist philosophy of language denies such an existence but ascribes the so-called existence to the process of objectification as well as the unwarranted concept of duality. According to the Buddhist view of language, the object-hood is established through interactions between name-and-form and consciousness, neither of which enjoys real existence. Thus, object-hood is merely out of mental construction. It is object-hood, together with the concept of duality, that serves as the premise for language. Even though language system hinges upon object-hood and duality, many well-known grammatical features still pose challenges to the validity of object-hood and duality. Finally, the limitations of language, as repercussions of object-hood and objectification, are explored and exemplified. To sum up, object-hood and objectification not only create language but also confine language to the range of duality.

I would like to thank Prof. Chu-Ren Huang who guides me with his brilliant mind and great patience during the whole process of writing this paper. I benefit tremendously from our discussions on various topics covered in this paper. Without his insightful comments and encouraging attitude, this paper wouldn’t have taken its initial shape, undergone various reincarnations, and finally become what it is. Any mistakes and shortcomings in this paper, however, are solely mine.