My time in Korea: Wittgenstein in action

Wittgenstein's great reminder that "meaning is use", has never been more relevant to more than during my time in Korea. Most people think that in teaching a language, all one has to do is simply give a translation or point to object to which it signifies and that's that (of course this only applies to teaching vocabulary). In most cases this is sufficient. If I want to tell my students what "water" means, I can either say it means "물", or point to some water. Yet, unlike in the case of most nouns, some verbs, a few adjectives and adverbs, one cannot simply point to or act out the meaning of words or phrases. Even where it is possible to do this, the learner's understanding of that word may well not be complete. For example, the word 'plant'. I can explain one aspect of a plant by pointing to one. Yet the learner might infer that plants include everything from trees to moss. Yet, the way we use 'plant' is very specific, and can be difficult to explain, unless you learn how to use the word. One could say that a plant is something that has flowers, and, of course, I'm thinking of things like primroses, violets and sunflowers. Yet trees and bushes have flowers, but we wouldn't ordinarily regard them as plants per se. That is to say that while it wouldn't be unreasonable to call trees and bushes plants, it wouldn't prove to be useful in fully articulating what we are talking about. The terms 'tree', 'bush' and 'plant' are used in such a way to differentiate between the various kinds botanical life in the world. However, it is difficult to tell or show someone how 'plant' is used.
We could also say plants are smaller, comprising of stems, flowers, leaves and roots. Yet even here we have not clearly demarcated the barrier between all things we understand as plants, and all the things we understand as being trees, bushes and so on, as they all share common features. The differences may seem clear to us as English speakers, but this is due to the way we use our language. In our language we differentiate between plants, trees and bushes, but in other languages there may be no such differentiation, and therefore, culturally and psychologically speaking, no sense of there being any categorical different between these organisms.
I am of course speaking from experience here. During my lessons in Korea and my conversations with Koreans there were times when I found myself struggling to accurately define certain words, 'plant' being one of them. So the only way my students will understand the way in which to use the word 'plant' is discover how we use it in conversation through seeing it in context. There is one word in Korean that perfectly exemplifies Wittgensteinian thought and that is the Korean concept of "정" (jeong). It is a concept that has no equivalent word in English, but it is supposed that it is a kind affection that one shares with someone they care about. It's a particular kind of affection that stems from the way Koreans think about their fellow man. A kind of world view that one would understand only if they were Korean, or if they spent a long time there. But the point is it is not someone that one can readily explain, or that one could understand in isolation, since it requires other people a) for it to make sense and b) to learn of it's function in Korean language and culture in the first place.
In my time in Korea I can confirm that an effective method of learning a language is to be immersed in it for a prolonged period of time. Not only do you pick up the language by osmosis, but you learn how the Korean people use their language. For example, the word 맞아 (maja) has a variety of ways in which you can use this word. It can mean, 'true', 'that's right', 'that's true', 'Is that right?' (said with the correct intonation) 'indeed' etc. But, I would claim, you only get a clear understanding of what this word means and how Korean people use it by hearing Koreans use it and by experimenting with it yourself. Often people confuse language with something set in stone, something that we use, but have no influence over. But language is utterly dependent upon how we use it, according to current cultural trends or cultural shifts. Language is one of the most beautiful and greatest examples of human intelligence. The sophistication of our languages, and our ability to communicate complex ideas, emotions, feelings, desires is truly astounding when take a few moments to think about the things we talk about and how well we are wble to understand each other. Language also shapes and is shaped by the culture of the language users. The Korean language has developed in such a way to reflect their Confucian ideals, namely different suffixes are added to words to order to convey respect. If you are talking to someone older than you, or someone of a higher status than you, you have to use more respectful language. Conversely, if you are talking to someone of lower status or of a younger age, you can be more informal. So, we manipulate language to express ourselves, and it does more than facilitate communication, but reflects culture and our character.

Religion Causes wars, apparently

A classic case against religion is the misdirected notion that it is the cause of all wars in history. It is implicitly assumed that religion has inherent deficiencies that somehow inevitably lead to conflict. Yet, this is plainly false. In most religions, there is barely any incitement to violence or war. In fact, by and large, religion has only ever been a force for social cohesion.
People are responsible for war. Where religion has seen to be at the epicentre of war, it has only been used a vehicle or justification for war. People have only ever used religion and the religious believer's faith as vehicle for their own mad designs. If there had been no religion, there have been something else to kindle extremism and ultimately war. to say religion is the direct cause of war is like saying that it was the car's fault when you crash your car (assuming no technical fault with the car, when it was clearly you that was driving.
This whole pathetic blame game is one of the many attempts to denounce religion and not recognise the humanity behind everything we do. It is ridiculous to think that a set of beliefs alone can make someone insane and psychotic. Those who incite war, twist and maim religion to make it fit their horrific world view, or their greedy ambitions.
It is incredibly naive for people to associate the idea with the actions that appear to proceed from it. It is only ever people who bring about the evils that only seem to emanate from a religious cause or defence. It is people who, through religion, and their own misguided idiocies, seek to impose their beliefs, beliefs of peace and love of one's neighbour through violence and deception. It is people who fight over the trivial matters of religion, and never the ones that matter. It is these extremists, those who need a truth higher than themselves, those who cannot function without it, who put nations at war. Or it is the people who use religion only as a form of control to further their own selfish causes. The point is that it is people of a certain psychological structure who find a place in religion because it deals with absolute truth and faith, and can be set at ease. Yet, you might say, there is something wrong with religion, or rather that religion lends itself to extremism and war due to the kinds of people it attracts. But, the truth of the matter is that anything will lead to extremism and war. This of the carnage brought about by wars over political ideology. So it is something endemic in certain kinds of people who will twist things the wrong way for a variety of reasons. Religion only seems to be the centre of this kind of behaviour because it has been the centre of humanity for thousands of years. Fundamentally, religion is a human attempt to find answers to one's life and purpose, particularly for those who find it difficult to create their own way in life. These people are in my view weak and easily lead, but this an issue for another time.