Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI 11
NAGLIS KARDELIS
The Uni e si y o Vilnius
Resea ch a eas: Ancien and medie al philosophy, e lec ion o
classical philosophy in con empo a y philosophy, philosophy o
language, philosophy o science, philosophy o eligion, ancien cul u e,
ancien li e a u e, his o y o ancien languages, ci iliza ions.
Li huanian language
The SPARNAI1
Fo us Li huanians, he na i e language is no a bu den, a bu den o des iny on ou shoulde s
and bending o he g ound like a hea y s one. No, hese a e easy wings ha li us highe han
he wings o o he languages ha we lea n la e in li e. The wings o he na i e language a e
ligh e because hey do no ha e o be wo n on he hands like Ica us […] hey gi e us ou own
na u e and g ow on ou shoulde s, and when we ise high hey do no mel like wax. I is ou
na u al weal h wings ha li us o spi i ual heigh s and ca y us o he a hes ho izons o
meaning. Un o una ely, we o en o ge ha we ha e hese wonde ul wings o he spi i ,
and we d ag ou mo he ongue h ough he ield o li e like a hea y s one. No only o dina y
mo als, opp essed by he p essu es o e e yday li e, bu also schola s o language and
w i ing - hose who mus ly on he wings o language - o en hink oo much abou language,
saying ha language is he simples means o communica ion, because ha is i s main
unc ion. Wha is nykus and seklus is a ep esen a ion o he na u e o language, because i 's
ha d o g asp when you conside ha he wo d "communica ion", which comes om he La in
e b communica io, which means " o sha e, o communica e, o pass on, o con ey", e eals
ha communica ion is a o mal sha ing o wha we a e no obliged o do o o he s: i 's a
sha ing o some hing ha can be sha ed, bu mos o en i 's a o mal, unconscious
ela ionship. In addi ion, i would be oo li le o ecognize o o e emphasize only he cogni i e,
cogni i e, unc ion o language: he meaning o language should be limi ed o he ield o
knowledge alone. This a icle was published in he jou nal Me ai, and i s agmen s should be
ead in he mo ning o May 8, 2017.
NAGLIS KARDELIS
12 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI we would no p ope ly unde s and he
na u e o language and unde es ima e he alue o hese wings o he spi i
o he pe son and he na ion.
When we hink o language om an on ological poin o iew, when we emphasize
i s oo edness in being, we a e no longe alking abou communica ion - a
communica ion based solely on he ansmission o pu e in o ma ion - bu abou
communion - a ue and comple e communion, a communion o people on a le el ha
commi s us o he ullness o ou being and ou spi i ual sel . These a e he eal
i iama d asinė bend ys ė, apie ku ią yliais išmin ingais žodžiais, be įman -
heo e ical concep s o he na i e language, acco ding o au ho s o old
Li huanian li e a u e and con empo a y Li huanian poe s and p ose w i e s. Bu I
ha e in mind no only w i e s […] in he hea o e e y Li huanian ha language, as
in he language o all ou communion and he ield o meaning ul ellowship ha
b ings us all oge he , he pe cep ion is e y ali e, e y close. Ou es eemed
philosophe An anas Maceina has men ioned ha each language opens up a unique
iew o he wo ld, a co ne o seeing he wo ld in i s own igh . This idea was i s
exp essed by he Ge man philosophe and hinke Wilhelm on Humbold and la e
de eloped by A. Maceino, who s a ed he p o essional adi ion o Li huanian
language philosophy. I was A. Maceina who, in his wo ks on he philosophy o he
Li huanian language, showed how o iginal and p o ound i is possible o hink abou
he Li huanian language om a philosophical poin o iew, highligh ing he peculia i y o he Li huanian language's iew o he open wo ld.
Bu his ime I would like o hink abou ano he , albei equally philosophical,
subjec - he p oximi y and dis ance o ou na i e language o he non- e bal,
a he han he e bal, eali y, as well as some o he , pa icula ly p essing,
p oblems ela ed o he a e o he na i e language. I'll s a by no ing ha
language […] is a na u al (na u al) and cul u al o ganism a he same ime. The
connec ion be ween language and na u e is clea ly seen e e y ime we say he
in ini ely swee and p ecious Li huanian combina ion o wo ds "na i e language"
o all o us. Bi h is an essen ial cha ac e is ic o he na i e language. A he
same ime, i is also he mos uni e sal medium o he exis ence o all cul u al
meanings. The uniqueness o he na i e language and, we would say, i s unique
on ological cha ac e is ic, i al o he exis ence o e e y human being, is ha he
na i e language combines in he expe ience o he speake he na u al and
cul u al plo s […] combines in a way ha no non-na i e language would ha e o do,
coming in o ou wo ld only om pu e cul u e and only h ough cul u e. A he
same ime, howe e , i is impo an o ealize ha no only all ha we
adi ionally associa e wi h cul u e, cul u al impulse and cul u al e o , bu also
he hings o na u e hemsel es mus be ega ded no so much as du ies o
exis ence aken o g an ed, bu as asks […] wha , ha ing ecei ed om na u e
and ha ing om na u e, we mus con inue o cul i a e and li e by ou own
Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI 13 (English ansla ion by he Li huanian au ho i ies)
Leng i lie u ių kalbos spa nai
pe sonal e o s, wisdom and pe se e ance, in o de o gi e he wo k o
Li huanian na u e o ou de eloped Li huanian cul u al ins i u ions. The na u e o
he na i e language is also de e mined by he ac ha i is he only one capable
o e ealing o us he absolu e au hen ici y o he linguis ically media ed
expe ience and he na u alness o he pe sonal exis en ial si ua ion o each o
us. I is he mo he ongue, being he mos uni e sal medium o he bi h and
exis ence o all cul u al meanings, ha is he only one capable o gi ing us he
encijos i isos ik o ės in e p e a imo kon eks ą, ku io jau neįmanoma – i
ul ima e human exis ence […] o be u he de eloped by any means. By gi ing us
his ul ima e con ex o he in e p e a ion o all eali y and o ou own being,
along wi h he na u alness o ou exis en ial s a e, he mo he ongue also gi es
us a sense o he ullness o being - a sense ha no o he hing in he wo ld can
gi e us. I is his accompanying eeling o ullness o being ha we can conside o
be he essen ial ea u e o he ul illed au hen ici y o being. When we hink o
he on ology o language, we ha e in mind he philosophical connec ion o language
wi h being, bu we should no hink o being as a being whose bu den bends us o
he g ound, o as me ely a physical exis ence o some kind o banal, ege a i e
human exis ence: we should hink o i as a way o being in he wo ld ha opens up
a ho izon o ul ima e meaning, which, once eached, would no longe equi e
ano he , mo e dis an ho izon, ano he , wide ho izon. Language - abo e all he
mo he ongue - opens up o us a pe spec i e o ou being and sel -image ha
makes sense o us o he end, ully ealizing he possibili ies o ou spi i ual
de elopmen o ou inal eleological limi , and i is p ecisely because o his ha
a he momen o ul illmen we eel ha we no longe need a wide con ex . This
is wha we call he expe ience o happiness, ul illmen . Al hough, on he one hand,
he con ex o language is he whole wo ld, which we na u ally pe cei e as
b oade han language and as encompassing i om he ou side, on he o he
hand, i we look a li le di e en ly, we can see ha in a ce ain sense he language
i sel - especially he mo he ongue - is he con ex o he es o he wo ld. The
bounda ies o language a e some imes wide han he bounda ies o he wo ld, so
i can make sense no only o ou exis ence, bu o he whole wo ld. The na i e
language is he inal limi o he ho izon o ou meaning. When we hink abou he
ela ionship be ween language and he wo ld, we ha e o ake in o accoun he
na u e o language and he dialec ic o cul u e, which e eals ha he mo he
ongue, which we ha e by na u e, na u ally, we a e able o con inue o de elop
wi h he conscious cul u al e o s o ou spi i and use i as a powe ul weapon
o de end ou being agains he in asions o igno ance. Bu can ou mo he ongue
eally be ou weapon? Le us y o examine his ques ion in as much de ail as
possible, ecalling ou ea lie sugges ion ha i is p ecisely he na i e
NAGLIS KARDELIS
14 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI language gi es us he g ea es oppo uni y
o ge close o he wo ld and, i necessa y, he g ea es dis ance om i ; o
make he closes iends wi h he wo ld and, i ha becomes ine i able, o make
he closes acquain ance wi h i . Language can b ing us close o he wo ld when
i seems swee o us, and ha 's why we wan o ge as close o i as possible. On
he o he hand, language manages o keep us a a sa e dis ance om he wo ld
when, in i s b u al o m, i suddenly becomes unpleasan o us. We a e p o ec ed
om he ho o s o he wo ld by poe y […] he poe ic wo d s ichija, he momen
o ial ha o e whelms us as i i we e a new language ha allows us o walk a
jaukūs namai, ampan ys mums nauju pasauliu i nauja ik o e. Ypač gim o-
e y di e en dis ance om he wo ld. In o he wo ds, i allows us o ge close
o he non- e bal eali y […] he hings o eali y […] close han any o he
language, because by saying he wo ds o ou na i e language, o which we ha e
become accus omed since childhood, as i hey we e sepa a e hings o he same
eal wo ld, comple ely coinciding wi h he hings o he non- e bal eali y, we no
longe see in ou minds he wo ds we say, bu he wo ds hemsel es. We could say
mo e adically: when we p onounce wo ds in ou na i e language, we a e no eally
p onouncing hem, bu he e y hings hey a e p onouncing. Fo example, he
wo d " ee", o which we ha e become so accus omed since childhood ha we do
no no ice i and he e o e ins inc i ely iden i y i wi h he li ing hing " ee",
we immedia ely see a ee in ou mind o imagina ion and no he wo d " ee".
When we say a name in ou na i e language, we immedia ely pu i in ou
imagina ion, and he hing i 's called. The wo ds spoken in he na i e language open
up o us he mos au hen ic non-human pe cep ion o eali y, which is only
gene ally possible o a human being. Speaking in any o he […] non-na i e […]
language, he dis ance o non-human hings and he non-human wo ld made up o
hem is always g ea e . By using o eign wo ds, we can' ge as close o he
non-human wo ld as we'd like. On he o he hand, we can hink o speech as a
medium o poe ic c ea i i y. Jus as no poe y is possible wi hou language in
gene al, so indeed au hen ic poe y is impossible wi hou he mo he ongue.
Poe s o en c ea e no only in hei na i e language, bu also in a ious o eign
languages, bu he deepes poe ic insigh s, he deepes emo ional nuances a e
e ealed only by saying he wo ds o hei na i e language. The wo ld o poe y is
indeed e y peculia and unlike any o he . Josip B odsky and Tomas Venclo a ha e
epea edly obse ed ha he wo lds o language and poe y a e absolu ely
au onomous o e en au a chic. Wo ds a e capable o c ea ing an al e na i e
eali y, and his can become a coun e weigh o he " eal" wo ld, which a one
poin o ano he in li e, especially when aced wi h di icul ials, o en u ns
ou o be unkind, meaningless, b u al, epulsi e. I he wo ld annoys us, we ha e
he oppo uni y o e ea o ano he , al e na i e, which poe y gi es us.
Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI 15 (Linguis ic Ac o Li huania) was adop ed by he Li huanian Pa liamen .
Leng i lie u ių kalbos spa nai
So e e y ime we ha e he exis en ial necessi y o wi hd aw om he wo ld a a
sa e dis ance o ano he , al e na i e, wo ld, we can again u n o ou mo he
ongue. Bu he poe y ha is c ea ed in ano he language, which is lacking in
au hen ici y, which is cha ac e is ic o poe y, which is w i en in a language
ha is endowed wi h i s own na u e, is no longe capable o c ea ing such a
adical and such an on ologically au onomous al e na i e o he exis ing wo ld,
and he e o e i is no able o dis ance us om he b u al wo ld as much as we
would like. I 's impo an o hink o language as a li ing, e e -g owing o ganism.
In o de o be e unde s and he ela ionship be ween he na u e o language
and he powe o language-speci ic g ow h, i is wo h no ing ha he na u e o
he ancien G eeks i sel was pe cei ed no as s a ic and no as a hing, as
somehow suspended in i s de elopmen and comple ed o all ime, bu as a
p ocess o g ow h a he same ime, and as he esul o g ow h cons an ly
enewed du ing he p ocess o g ow h i sel . I should be no ed ha he G eek
wo d o hing is phusis ‘p igim is; na u e is de i ed om he oo phu-, om
which he G eek e b phuō […] o g ow[…] and i s passi e o m phuomai […] o
g ow[…] a e de i ed; o g ow. By he way, we ecognize he same Indo-Eu opean
oo in he Li huanian e b o be and o be in he dic iona y […] his is a e y
impo an ci cums ance ha we mus keep in mind when conside ing he on ology o language, he ounda ions o he Li huanian language.
So he wisdom o language i sel ells us ha he seman ics o g ow h a e e y
impo an when hinking abou any […] as well as he na u e o language. Language
is a li ing o ganism ha has su i ed o housands o yea s, and each wo d is an
imp essi e li ing ossil wi h no jus a ew housand yea s o his o y, bu an
unb oken his o y o li ing e olu ion ha goes back housands o yea s. Al hough
he Li huanian language i sel did no ye exis a he ime when he oo s o
Indo-Eu opeanism appea ed, hey a e pe ec ly p ese ed, so o speak, in some
kind o linguis ic paleon ology p ese ed in Li huanian wo ds. In his a chaic na i e
language, wo ds mus be pe cei ed no only as ce ain o ganisms o linguis ic
na u e ha ha e al eady ceased o g ow, bea ing wi ness o a ce ain hough
and he esul o i s linguis ic o ma ion, much less as ozen and ha dened
s ones ha once esembled ho magma and he ock o such a linguis ic mass, bu
also as con inuing o g ow and all o us con inuing o g ow. The wo ds o he na i e
language, which a e s ill g owing and being cul i a ed by us as o ganisms o hei
own linguis ic na u e, a e s ill bu owing wi h hei li e and oblige us o de end and
p ese e hem. Toge he hey s and be o e us as one li ing linguis ic body […] as a
command o u he de elop he mo he ongue, because i is nei he dead no ou
ances o s comple ed o all ime […] i is cons an ly g owing and de eloping, because o he powe ul Li huanian spi i […].
Language is cha ac e ized by a complex dialec ic o s a ics and dynamics. I we
hink o language om he poin o iew o i s sys em, i s synch onously ixed
cu ing, we a e undoub edly o ced o pe cei e i as s a ic, bu we mus no o ge ha such

NAGLIS KARDELIS
16 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI
The momen a y ixa ion o he de elopmen o a language, which u ns he gaze
no on he li ing ee o a g owing language, bu on one o he o he o i s cu
s ones (ob iously cu no in eali y, bu in he mind o he heo e ician o language)
h ough he ixa ion o only one synch onous b anch o one's language sys em, is
essen ially a pu ely ins umen al ac ion ha acili a es he heo e ical
pe cep ion o eal language p ocesses, bu has li le in i sel . Language, hough o
as a s a ic synch onous sys em, is mo e o an abs ac heo e ical idealiza ion
han some hing ha ac ually exis s in eali y, because, as we ha e al eady
men ioned, language in i s na u al essence is mo e dynamic han s a ic. In addi ion,
language, especially na i e language, mus be hough o no only om he poin o
iew o language as an objec o heo e ical analysis, bu also om he poin o
iew o he subjec o language. On he one hand, language g ows as i by i sel -- in
a sense, we don' g ow he language, i g ows us, and i doesn' speak o us as much
as we speak o i (which, pa adoxically, sounds like i ). On he o he hand, […] looking
a i a li le di e en ly, […] i is necessa y o ecognize ha in a ce ain sense
each o us is he c ea o and cul i a o o he na i e language, who has no igh o
ee himsel om his di icul bu e y p ac ical wo k. So language, al hough i
g ows as i by i sel , ne e heless has i s own b eede - no jus one pe son, bu
he whole na ion, as a collec i e b eede o language, al hough his does no nega e
he conclusion ha we can and mus all con ibu e o he wo k o b eeding ou
mo he ongue - a e all, we a e all, as appoin ed esponsible pe sons, b eede s o ou mo he ongue.
We a e esponsible o wo ds whose oo s a e a leas six o se en housand
yea s old […] his is only an app oxima e es ima e o hei age, because
Indo-Eu opeanism is able o econs uc such a ime ho izon. Fo example, i we
look a a s a in he sky, we see a ligh ha le i s s a a ew housand yea s
ago, i he dis ance o ha s a is a ew housand ligh -yea s. We a e amazed o
see gian ees in o eign lands, edwoods, c yp ome es and hick bushes, which
a e al eady se e al housand yea s old, and we canno belie e ha , despi e such
an inc edible age, hey a e s ill ali e and s ill g owing, bu we ha dly ealize o
simply do no unde s and ha he wo ds o he Li huanian language a e as old
and as ali e as ou s, and ha hey a e he peculia i y o all o us, which now we
ou sel es owe o ou ances o s.
gin i a eičiai, a ei ies ka oms. I bū en jie – ūks an mečiai gim osios kalbos
The wo ds o he na i e language a e o be, hey gi e us a inal ho izon o meaning -
one ha no longe needs a wide ho izon, and a b oade con ex o in e p e a ion o
eali y - one ha no longe needs a wide con ex o explain i . Language pushes he
bounda ies o ou au hen ic being and de ines he con ou s o ou own being. As he
p ope y o he en i e language communi y, i is also he g ea es pe sonal asse o
Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI 17 (Linguis ic Ac o Li huania) was adop ed by he Li huanian Pa liamen .
Leng i lie u ių kalbos spa nai
each o us. The dialec ic o communi y and pe sonali y ha is cha ac e is ic o his
language is also e y impo an : because language no only exp esses abs ac
hough s ha can be clea ly pe cei ed by he mind and p ecisely ansmi ed […]
communica ed […] o o he membe s o he language communi y, and no only whose
conc e e wo ds indica e he usual physical e e en s ha can be expe ienced by he
senses, bu also exp esses he mos sub le eelings ha we do no necessa ily
con ey o each o he […] non e bal […]. O cou se, we a e no able o eel ano he
pe son's eelings di ec ly (o , o be mo e p ecise, al hough no qui e co ec ly, o
eel ano he pe son's eelings indi ec ly) - we can only obse e he pe son who eels
hem om he side, and he o he pe son's eeling i sel emains di ec ly
impe cep ible o us. Ye man, by speaking, by speaking, especially by bi h,
communica es hese eelings o us, and no only does he communica e hem, bu he
also sha es hem wi h us, so o speak, in a sec e communion o eelings, a leas in
pa con eying his pain and his joy, his lack o meaning and he ullness o meaning. So
language is no jus a means o communica ion (o dina y in o ma ion
communica ion), bu also a means o eeling, so o speak, a sense o ellowship, a
sense o communion.
This is an ex emely impo an unc ion o language, and in his espec language is a
unique phenomenon in he whole o eali y: pa adoxically, he uniqueness o he
mo he ongue is de e mined by he ac ha i , being he p ope y and common
p ope y o he en i e linguis ic communi y, is a he same ime he mos p ecious
pe sonal p ope y o each o us. Appa en ly, I'm no going o lie when I say ha he
Li huanian language is he g ea es common weal h o he en i e Li huanian na ion,
and he g ea es pe sonal weal h o e e y pos -Li huanian. The possibili ies o
language in he spi i ual ealm a e endless. Each language has a mul i ude o wo ds,
and hose wo ds ha e a mul i ude o meanings and an in ini e numbe o e en mo e
sub le meanings, which in u n can be pe cei ed e y di e en ly by di e en people
speaking he same mo he ongue and all he mo e so by membe s o he communi y
who speak all o he languages, ying o speak in o eign languages and o pe cei e
hei own e hos. Va ious cul u al connec ions and seman ic associa ions c ea e an
ex emely di e se wo ld o language, which, being so di e se, can bes con ey he
ou line o ou souls, exp essing ou deepes essence and ou au hen ic sel . A he
komunikuo i ki iems žmonėms – a ne daly is su jais bend ąja p asme i d au-
same ime, his wo ld o language allows us o expe ience ou hough s and eelings in
he ullness o being oge he in a meaning ul way: by speaking he language,
especially he na i e language, we become pa icipan s in a hidden communion in he
sense o communion in he ullness o meaning and communion in he ullness o
meaning. When conside ing he philosophy o language, we should no hink ha such
heo e ical ques ions should conce n only philosophe s and linguis s. Non-philosophical
conside a ions abou he na u e o he mo he ongue and i s u he cul i a ion should be o impo ance o he en i e linguis ic communi y, o all membe s o he na ion and especially o poli icians.
NAGLIS KARDELIS
18 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI whose shoulde s a e e y hea y wi h
esponsibili y o he u u e o he na ion, he u u e o language and he u u e
o li e a u e c ea ed in he na i e language. Finally, he esponsibili y is no only
o he wel a e o he pe sons assigned, bu also o he es ablishmen and
p ese a ion o he o ien a ion o he en i e na ion's exis en ial meaning.
cons an ly hea ing ha he Li huanian language is he language o peasan s, he
language o men, o ha i does no con ain e ms ha could be used o exp ess
complex scien i ic concep s; o ced o lis en o ins uc ions allowing scien is s
o w i e se ious scien i ic ex s in o eign languages in he humani ies […] o
c ea e, o , in he ja gon o he ule s, o p oduce (like in a science language
ac o y) he so-called p es igious scien i ic p oduc ion, in ended o be published
in p es igious jou nals ab oad, we, Li huanian humanis s, ha e no igh o emain
silen , because we […] d ama ically ecognize […] he posi ion o he bu eauc a s
who would no be gi en he igh o educa e and pay science in gene al. Speaking
abou his, i is wo h ecalling ha he deepe na u e and na u e o he
humani ies is ela ed o he bi h, pe cep ion, in e p e a ion and sha ing o
meanings. And his is he main di e ence be ween he humani ies and he na u al
sciences, which, based on empi ical ac s, make ou exis ence on his ea h
physically possible, and he humani ies would ha e o make ou exis ence no only
physically possible, bu also meaning ul. Thus, humani a ianism speaks o en i ely
di e en hings - he disco e y, es ablishmen , p ese a ion o he ho izon o
he meaning o being and he condi ions o i s disco e y and p ese a ion.
Humani a ianism ope a es wi h meaning, no ba e ac s. I 's ue ha in he
humani ies, we o en ha e o deal wi h ac s, bu hey ne e become -- o a leas
hey shouldn' become -- hings o hei own, only as impo an as hey con ibu e
o he sea ch o meaning. The s a us o he naked empi ical ac in he
humani ies is en i ely di e en om ha in he na u al sciences, which a e
conce ned wi h inding ou he exac alues o cons an s, he speci ic
pa ame e s o physical, chemical and o he na u al s a es and, in gene al, a la ge
numbe o a ious empi ical ac s, which a e o g ea impo ance o he
de elopmen o echnology, and echnology, as we all know, p o ides angible
jie ne eikia, jų neįmanoma panaudo i echnologijoms ku i, be o, pa ys sa ai-
p ac ical bene i s. In he humani ies, ac s a e o seconda y impo ance - o no
p ac ical use o me, un il a emp s a e made o in e p e hem, hese ac s say
no hing abou meaning, which is p ecisely wha he humani ies ca e abou o
should ca e abou . Because i doesn' ma e when a w i e was bo n o when he
died, o when he w o e his o ha wo k, he essen ial hing is ha he meaning
o he au ho 's wo k is e ealed, which a ce ain momen s o ou li es, o
a ious pe sonal easons, can unexpec edly e eal i sel o any o us as
exis en ially unimpo an and la e help he soul a e yea s o eading he wo k.
Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI 19 This Regula ion shall en e in o o ce on he wen ie h day ollowing ha o i s publica ion in he O icial Jou nal o he Eu opean Union.
Leng i lie u ių kalbos spa nai
And ha meaning canno be g asped in any o he way only in he na i e language.
W i ing no only he beau i ul ex s hemsel es, bu also scien i ic wo ks on
li e a y wo ks c ea ed in he na i e language, in o he […] non-na i e […] languages
is no longe possible adequa ely, wi hou losing he essen ial meanings and
nuances o meaning, o con ey hose scien i ic insigh s ha a e in ended o
econs uc he ho izon o he meaning o he ex s being analyzed. I is
impossible o w i e a uly good scien i ic ex in a o eign language, nei he
abou he beau i ul li e a u e c ea ed in he na i e language, no abou he
au hen ic, om he dep hs o expe ience a ising philosophy […] he mo e o iginal
o hink philosophically. Re u ning o he idea o language-speci ic na u e and
cul u al dialec ics, i is wo h ecalling he hypo hesis o he acquisi ion o
linguis ic abili ies: acco ding o his hypo hesis, each newbo n seems o "g ab"
his pa en s' na i e language and "es ablish" i in himsel . Wha we see he e is an
ob ious connec ion be ween na u e and cul u e: wha was gi en o us in he i s
place, no cul u ally, bu almos biologically, so o speak, gi en by he e y
biological na u e o man, mus la e , in he conscious phase o li e, be comple ed
by an ac i e cul u al e o , he cul i a ion o a new cul u e. I hink o he
mo he ongue as a na u al gi ha , soone o la e , when we become conscious
human beings, we ha e o u n in o a cul u al ask. The e o e, i is a e y
impo an ask o all o us, he humani a ian, I would say, a ma e o ou di ec
esponsibili y and e en ou sel -es eem, o explain o poli icians and scien i ic
bu eauc a s ha w i ing scien i ic wo ks in he humani a ian ield is some hing
o he han na u al science ex s. Fac s in he na u al sciences a e no only a
mo e impo an han in he humani a ian sciences […] hey a e i s and
o emos impe sonal, in no way indica i e o he speci ic place in which one o
ano he people li e, na ional iden i ies and he ields o meaning associa ed wi h
hem, a e he e o e cosmopoli anly uni e sal, and all cul u al meanings
in e p e ed in he humani a ian sciences […] e en uni e sally
([…]cosmopoli anly[…]) a e always he place whe e hey a e es ablished, and i is
p ecisely in his espec ha local meanings a e impo an . All cul u al meanings,
e en hose ha la e become uni e sally signi ican , a e bo n and o iginally exis
p ecisely as local meanings o speci ic cul u al communi ies es ablished a a
su okus ampa aišku, kad pa ašy i ge ą izikos, chemijos a molekulinės biolo-
pa icula ime, li ing in speci ic geog aphical loca ions. Only he mo he ongue is
su icien ly sensi i e o he localiza ion o a cul u ally es ablished meaning, being
able o con ey wha we would call he peculia "wisdom o he place". I is a
comple ely di e en and di e en ask - o a di e en na u e, na u e and
cul u al pu pose - han o w i e a good scien i ic ex abou any objec o he
humani ies. This conclusion is e iden om he ac ha some o he mo e sub le
meanings pe cei ed by he humani a ian esea che - especially hose ha ha e g own up wi h hei e y place o o igin and con ey he "wisdom o he place" - canno and will ne e be p ope ly con eyed in any o eign language.