What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? If no one spoke at all?

Having different languages have brought different perspectives in the world. This is because the terminology and the sphere of vocabulary varies from culture to culture. The different spheres of vocabulary and the definitions words convey in different cultures is most likely related to the traditions and values that culture has—which influences the culture’s perspective. Using this logic, we can conclude that the broader the range of different languages, the more perspectives and different view points will exist in the world. Knowing that having different languages has a direct influence on having different perspectives, it seems reasonable to claim that speaking the same language would lessen the range of our perspectives and more people would start to think alike. But this claim is not valid because knowing that we are humans a broad range of perspectives needs to exist, and if we couldn’t express that through varying languages we would deepen our specialist in the only one we did speak. 

There are certain words or phrases that cannot be translated to other languages, and this fact itself causes the existence of different perspectives. But if everyone spoke the same language, the need for having different view points would force humans to add precise details, and broaden the sphere of the vocabulary for that one language that every one spoke. By having a language with detailed vocabulary, clear definitions and broad terminology humans would have the opportunity to have a range of different perspective—Although the traditions and values would be more similar because a world with only one language would have very similar cultures. Even if there was no language to speak (or if no one spoke), humans would have found others ways for communication to express their emotions or their opinions—points of view—such as in-depth drawing, symbols, signs, sounds, etc.

Are There Reasons to be Skeptical of Your Knowledge Claims?

Skepticism is simply believing that we can not have complete certainty in anything we know. There are many reasons to be skeptical for what we know or consider a part of our knowledge. As humans we understand the world around us through our senses. Seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are how we have developed the image of the environment we live in. knowing this, all our thoughts- even the most extraordinary ones- are formed due to the senses we have. In other words, your senses had to exist in the first place for you to even start a thought about a specific matter. But knowing senses make up a great deal of our understanding, we also know senses can we false, therefore the thoughts, theories and conclusions we rely on could be false as well. Another reason why we can be skeptical is because of our human nature that is dependent on materials and physical concepts or examples. Us humans have a hard time understanding or even thinking about concepts we cannot see; thus we make examples for almost every complex concept. We try to make equations and laws to put our knowledge in abstract form, yet be include uncertainties and exceptions. Although there is a possibility for what we consider knowledge, but there are also many reasons why be should be skeptical. 

Discussion Questions from "Allegory of the Cave"

1) Why are the people in the cave ignoring knowledge? (why don't they want to hear the man who has seen the outside and gained knowledge?)

2) How can one justify the things outside the cave were actually any more "real" than shadows? 

3) What is the biggest flaw in Plato's analogy of "Allegory of the Cave" in your opinion? (ex: the symbols could have been better used, the representation of the story, etc.)