Knowledge that is difficult to describe in words. Does this mean that other Ways of Knowing play a more important role than language in knowing how to do something?

However, if Marii is naturally talented with empathy in literature, it introduces knowing through instinct and talent. Does this mean that people immediately know how to do something? Although I’m not good with literature, I’m good at drawing. But I couldn’t draw from birth and I went through lots of practice. This indicates that one doesn’t know how to do something form birth but has to acquire the knowledge. In addition, instinct is like language, in this case requiring practice to express its knowledge in the individual. Another question arises whether understanding through language is only possible for some talented individuals? Looking at singing can answer this as it also is an area associated with talent. Controversially to that, my singing teacher Ms. Nelson claimed that everyone can be taught to sing. This found proof in my friend Liisi whose inability to hold tune was indicated to me through my perception. However, Ms. Nelson taught her to sing with practice despite having no talent. Therefore, this proves that untalented people can learn to understand through language. Furthermore, that instinct is like language, dependant on other ways of knowing which shows that language isn’t the only way of knowing subject to this problem.

However, although Liisi can hold tune, without talent she achieved this only to a certain level. I have talent but I’m not faultless in drawing, either. This suggests that learning through language is limited with or without talent. Therefore, knowledge passed to Marii in literature is limited, too. Can one know for certain if knowledge in language is limited? I don’t know. For example, I constantly practice drawing in the style of Japanese Manga. I think that I’ll never reach the rank of Kazuki Takahashi and other prestigious artists of Japanese art culture but I’m getting better day by day. This suggests that with practice I might one day have learned enough to master Japanese Manga. I don’t have the authority to say that I am getting better, though. Furthermore, the style divides into many sub- styles much like Estonian language has many dialects. How much practice is necessary to master this huge quantity of knowledge to say that one knows truth? This also suggests that despite being Estonian, I can’t speak my own language as I can’t speak all the dialects. What are the boundaries of a section of knowledge? Can Marii and our literature teachers ever practice enough to acquire knowledge through language?

A different way of looking at the dependence of language on other ways of knowing has risen from the latter. Language takes the very important role of passing knowledge between people and uses other ways of knowing as indicators of its validity. For instance, information in visual art is very personal portraying the artist’s experiences. My work makes sense to me but might not to the spectator. Most of the times, perception fails to transmit experience in art and the viewer can’t relate. In this situation, experience is also dependant on other ways of knowledge like language. For example, my art portrays my experiences of the conflict between two nationalities in Estonia. I’ve experienced the failure to understand my experiences in an art exhibition at the Regents School where people turned to pieces visually more attractive. I know that my work would’ve had more attention if I’d be given a chance to speak about it. For instance, when I explained my work to an artist visiting the school, she related to my experiences and understood the conflict in Estonia through my work. This example portrays language as an important transmitter. However, this only happens to some extent as experiences can’t be understood completely. Empathy is reintroduced plunging the essay into moving in a circle. The accuracy of knowledge passed down from person to person is therefore questioned.

However, how much does impersonal experience like empathy in Marii’s case, act as evidence for language? In some cases it seems one doesn’t need experience to trust the authority. For instance, scientists have informed me via the media that the strong electricity in electric fences can kill a person although I don’t have experience as I haven’t touched one. Language was used by the scientist to communicate this information to me and I confirmed the knowledge true. However, this is contradictory to what the essay has established. Another way of knowing is necessary to confirm it because how does the authority or I claim to know that electricity can kill? My emotion tells me it’s too risky to go and try it out myself- it seems I’ve learned of its killing power through some other source. One source is the media- through watching television I’ve seen news of people dying due to electric fences. Perception has given me the proof to confirm the authority that electric fences can kill.

If television is not available, there are other ways I can find proof from. For example, I’ve read of similar accidents in newspapers. Newspapers are authority, as well. Moreover, they rely on language which creates a conflict with a chain of authorities that need to be confirmed. How do I know the newspaper is telling the truth? Yet, if I’m given pictorial evidence as well, I can question whether the man died due to the electric fence or some other cause- witnesses are needed to affirm the picture. Videos would provide live evidence but with modern technology, videos can be tampered with. How is most convincing proof acquired? To see a person die due to an electric fence personally. Does this mean that the authorities have all seen with how electricity kills a person? Experimenting with another person’s life is out of the question as my emotion tells me it’s unethical. It’s also unlikely that each scientist has seen this happen through an accident. On the other hand, the person can give permission for such experiments. I saw Channel 4’s Anatomy for Beginners where a person had given permission to demonstrate human anatomy on him when he dies, live. In the same way, a person could sacrifice oneself for an experiment with electric fences. The person would be alive, though, and is anyone prepared to kill himself when it possibly involves pain?  I don’t have authority to answer that. However, even in this complex situation, language was the communicator of knowledge between people.

In conclusion, the essay has developed the idea that despite having flaws, language is not less important because other ways of knowing face the same sort of problems. It suggests that perhaps it’s even more important as it takes the role of passing information between people and ensures that knowledge doesn’t get lost. In reality, language uses other ways of knowing so that the person receiving the information can make sure that it’s correct. It’s a cycle in which information received through language forms a hypothesis that the receiver acquires proof for, passing it forward when found evidence of it being true. However, questions left unanswered arise all the same indicating that truth is hard to reach.