The research talk with Sool Park centered on the notion of “border language” (Grenzsprache), a key concept in Park’s philosophical approach as seen in his lecture (Un)übersetzbar: Was ist die Sprache der Philosophie? [(In)translatable: What is the Language of Philosophy?] and his recent monograph Paradoxien der Grenzsprache und das Problem der Übersetzung [Paradoxes of the Border Language and the Problem of Translation]. The talk examined the role of border languages in philosophy and their intersections with poetry, literature, and translation. Park and the research team engaged in a discussion about how language shapes and structures thought, the challenges of translating philosophical texts, and the importance of multilingualism in philosophical discourse.

Border Language and the Intersection of Philosophy and Poetry

A key theme of the discussion was the historical overlap between philosophy and poetry, particularly in premodern traditions. Park pointed out that in many historical contexts, especially in German Romanticism and classical Asian traditions, philosophy was often expressed through poetic forms. The strict division between philosophy and literature that exists today is largely a modern European development. In premodern times, the distinction between these disciplines was much less rigid, allowing for greater fluidity in thought and expression.

“There are many intermediary forms, especially in premodern times. In German Romanticism, many poets were also philosophers. Similarly, in premodern Asia, poetry often served as a mode of philosophical thought. […] The strict separation between philosophy and literature is essentially a modern European phenomenon. Historically, many philosophical texts were also literary, at least from our current perspective.”
— Sool Park

One of the major differences discussed was how philosophical language requires precision, whereas poetic language allows for interpretive flexibility. In philosophy, key concepts are systematically defined and must be translated with exact equivalence, as seen in Kantian terminology, where distinctions like “reason” (Vernunft) and “understanding” (Verstand) are carefully maintained. In contrast, poetic language operates with greater freedom, allowing for creative reinterpretation in translation. This fundamental distinction complicates the classification of philosophy as a border language, as its structured terminology resists fluidity in meaning.

“In philosophical texts, concepts must be translated precisely and consistently, as in Kant’s distinction between Vernunft (reason) and Verstand (understanding). This distinction must be preserved exactly as it is in the original. In contrast, in poetry, we have more freedom to adapt meanings, so that the text sounds beautiful in the target language. The main requirement for translating poetry is that it must sound good—it must recreate a sense of beauty. That gives the translator a different kind of freedom.”
— Sool Park

World Fragmentation and Philosophical Styles

Another central idea discussed was world fragmentation (Weltzerlegung) and the idea that language not only reflects but actively structures our perception of the world. Park maintained that every language operates as a form of world-framing, segmenting reality in ways that shape how we understand and engage with it.

“Every language has a built-in structure that preconfigures how we perceive and explore reality. Philosophy, in a sense, operates as a reflection upon these underlying linguistic structures.” — Sool Park

Participants explored whether each philosopher develops a distinct “style” of world-fragmentation, meaning that different thinkers do not merely express ideas within existing linguistic frameworks but create new conceptual worlds through their use of language. The discussion touched on how figures like Kant, Hegel, and Confucius represent distinct styles of thought, shaping philosophical discourse in unique ways. This led to the question of whether philosophy should be understood as an ongoing process of linguistic world-building rather than merely a reflection of reality.

“We do not just have philosophers like Kant or Hegel; we also have Kantian and Hegelian ways of thinking. Each philosophical tradition has its own way of fragmenting and reconstructing the world through language. The concept of ‘style’ here is important. Every major thinker operates with a certain style that is not just a linguistic phenomenon but a way of structuring thought itself.” — Sool Park

The Relationship Between Speech and Embodied Action

The conversation also examined the relationship between language and human action. Some participants argued that language emerges from practical experience, while others suggested that language fundamentally structures action. This debate highlighted a tension between viewing language as a reflection of reality and seeing it as an active force in shaping human experience. Additionally, the body and embodied action were brought up as nonverbal modes of generating meaning. Leon Krings argued that not only verbal and textual expressions, but also body languages can serve as intersubjectively shared media of communication. 

Park emphasized that philosophical language is unique because it does not simply describe experiences but restructures meaning itself. He compared philosophy to a “meta-software” that allows humans to refine and develop symbolic systems over time. This capacity for self-reflection and adaptation makes language a powerful tool not just for communication, but for redefining social and conceptual boundaries.

“Philosophy does not merely describe the world but reformulates the structures of meaning we use to understand it. It operates like a ‘meta-software’ that refines and regulates symbolic systems. It is one step removed from direct experience—it reflects on the structures that shape our experience and reorganizes them.” — Sool Park

“The difficulty I have with this question is determining the anchor points for negotiating meaning within language. Does this negotiation happen purely within language itself, or does it also come from outside it?” — Abbed Kanoor

“Meaning does not only emerge from language, but also from actions that may not yet have a linguistic form. We act together, developing shared practices, and only later find words to describe them. […] But it is not just that we first act and then find words, but rather that action and language are in constant interplay. […] Wittgenstein spoke of ‘language games’ and ‘forms of life.’ Language and action are not separate; they continuously shape one another in a back-and-forth process. We cannot always say what we are doing, and sometimes we cannot even say who we are. That is where border language becomes an issue—it pushes beyond what we can express in ordinary terms.” — Rolf Elberfeld

Multilingualism in Philosophy: Exception or Norm?

A significant part of the discussion revolved around the role of multilingualism in philosophy. Park argued that deep philosophical multilingualism—where a thinker fully engages with multiple linguistic traditions at a conceptual level—is rare and comes with high social and intellectual costs. Developing expertise in multiple philosophical traditions requires intensive study, often over generations, making it an exception rather than the norm.

“Deep philosophical multilingualism is rare because it requires long-term intellectual labor. To fully think in multiple traditions, one must develop an internal bridge between languages, which is not naturally acquired. […] Multilingualism often comes with high social costs. Historically, those who had access to multiple philosophical traditions were usually elites who could afford extended education.” — Sool Park

However, some participants challenged this view, pointing out that in many non-European contexts, multilingualism is not an anomaly but a standard mode of thinking. For example, philosophers on the African continent often navigate multiple linguistic and cultural frameworks simultaneously. The discussion also touched on creole languages and hybrid linguistic traditions, which inherently function as border languages. These perspectives complicated the idea that philosophical multilingualism is rare, instead suggesting that Western academic traditions may have artificially privileged monolingualism as the standard.

“If we look at the African continent, for example, the vast majority of philosophers work in at least two languages. Multilingualism is not an exception but a fundamental part of philosophical thinking in many societies. […] Creole languages and other contact languages inherently function as border languages. They emerge from social interaction, often in colonial and postcolonial contexts, forming new linguistic structures that do not fit neatly into established categories. In that sense, border language is not just an abstract philosophical concept—it is a real historical phenomenon” — Lara Hofner

The Social and Historical Dynamics of Translation

The conversation concluded with reflections on the historical and social implications of translation and multilingualism. The group noted that the process of translation—particularly in philosophical contexts—has often been shaped y power dynamics, such as colonial histories and intellectual hierarchies. Bridging languages and traditions requires significant cultural integration and long-term engagement, making it an arduous but essential task for expanding philosophical discourse.

“The process of translation is not just about transferring words from one language to another. It involves a historical negotiation of meaning, where terms take on new connotations depending on the context. Translating philosophy is particularly challenging because the terms must remain precise, but their meanings are shaped by different intellectual traditions. […] True philosophical translation is more than linguistic substitution. It requires an internalized understanding of multiple traditions, allowing one to think across linguistic boundaries rather than merely transferring content. It is a process of interpretation, transformation, and, ultimately, reinvention.” — Sool Park

The group also discussed how language standardization in Europe reinforced the dominance of monolingualism in philosophy. In contrast, many societies have maintained fluid, multilingual traditions, where translation and conceptual borrowing are more common. This raised important questions about how philosophy could move beyond its Eurocentric linguistic foundations to embrace a more inclusive and border-crossing approach.

“We need to be careful not to fall into an ideology of monolingualism. In many places around the world, multilingualism has always been the norm. In Europe, the idea of a standardized language is a relatively recent development, linked to the rise of the nation-state. […] In Europe, the rise of the nation-state led to linguistic standardization, reinforcing the dominance of monolingualism in philosophy. In contrast, many societies have always functioned multilingually.” — Monika Rohmer