- 2025年12月6日
A Guide to Learning Japanese Language and Culture (Simultaneously a Guide to Learning English and Western Culture)
— (Quasi-)Isomorphisms across Modern Philosophy, Modern Mathematics, Nihonjinron, Mathematics, and Medicine using Japanese and English —
A Guide to Learning Japanese Language and Culture (Simultaneously a Guide to Learning English and Western Culture)
— (Quasi-)Isomorphisms across Modern Philosophy, Modern Mathematics, Nihonjinron, Mathematics, and Medicine using Japanese and English —
I have created an article that is beneficial because understanding the theory of the Japanese language is useful for both learning modern philosophy and learning foreign languages.
Furthermore, by comparing and contrasting structuralism and realism in modern thought, set theory and category theory in mathematics, and morphology and physiology in medicine, I will attempt to present an overview or bird’s-eye view of academia as a whole, methods of learning, and examples of applying modern philosophy broadly to various sciences based on the concepts of isomorphism and quasi-isomorphism.
Originally, when trying to learn something properly, a general overview is important, but often this is missing when learning through inertia from primary education.
Because of this, there are cases where one has to study inefficiently with misunderstandings firmly in place, such as in English learning.
By setting English as a target for comparative linguistics or learning and explaining the general theory of Japanese, I think you will be able to understand not only language learning but also cultural theory and the essential differences or disconnects between Japan and the Western cultural sphere—which can even be said to be incompatible—as well as the fundamental structural differences. Being aware of these can make mutual interaction and understanding of the other possible and bridge the gap.
I hope you feel the value of this, like a year-end clearance sale where you gain multiple benefits at once.
First, the Conclusion
Japanese is a high-context culture or high-context language, and structurally, both culturally and linguistically, it is not built on the premise that something can be completely conveyed through words. Rather, it is better to view it as a language constructed on the premise that it is impossible to completely convey something through words.
It might be called non-Logos-like.
I will explain using extreme arguments because they are easier to understand.
Since they are extreme arguments, please understand that there are exceptions and aspects that are not entirely so.
In Japanese, we do not believe that everything can be conveyed in a single sentence.
At least in Japanese, when we want to convey something, we try to do so with a passage consisting of multiple sentences.
Even then, we speak assuming non-verbal expressions and, more broadly, cultural backgrounds and shared premises, because words alone are insufficient.
Does that mean it is complete? We do not believe that what we want to say, what we want to convey, or what should be conveyed can be fully expressed or transmitted to the other person. There is no premise that even oneself can accurately distinguish the content to be conveyed with clear boundaries; rather, there is a denial of even that.
Limiting this to words, this is called “Furyu-monji” (not relying on written words) in Zen terms.
In short, both the language and culture are established on the premise that “words do not have the ability to completely convey what one wants to convey.”
English is the Opposite
Let’s raise English as a representative language to compare with Japanese.
Since it is from the Biblical cultural sphere, it is a sphere where “In the beginning was the Word” and “the Word was God.”
English is a language established on the philosophy that all intended meaning can be put into a single sentence, and it is a language backed by such a cultural view.
If that is saying too much, it is a language that puts its heart and soul into trying to include all intended meaning within a single sentence.
This has a language structure, cultural structure, and philosophy that is more accurately described as Logos Supremacy rather than Logocentrism.
It is the idea that everything can be expressed and conveyed through Logos.
It is the exact opposite of Japanese.
Of course, there are parts where neither Japanese nor English fits this perfectly, but please understand it this way for now, as it is easier to understand by simplifying.
Japanese Has No Subject, No Object, and No Complement
I will explain this also with extreme arguments because it is easier to understand.
Japanese grammar is actually more appropriately expressed using terms like Taigen (substantives), Yogen (declinable words), Subject part, Predicate, and Modifier.
However, it is often explained using terms like Subject, Verb, and Object, dragged along by English grammar studies.
To speak without fear of misunderstanding, there is no subject in Japanese.
Rather than saying there is no subject, there are cases where it doesn’t need to be there.
It is a language where the subject is not mandatory.
There are cases where it is semantically unnecessary, and cases where it is semantically necessary but hidden by the form or expression of the sentence.
There is a “Subject Abolition Theory” by the genius Akira Mikami, which surprised the Japanese linguist Kyosuke Kindaichi.
I don’t know the details, but essentially, a subject is not mandatory for a sentence in Japanese.
It does not deny subject-like things; if you think it is necessary, you just add a subject-like thing.
In that sense, even the subject or subject part can be said to be modifying.
The Japanese particle “wa” can be used to create a subject, but more deeply, it is what is called a “topic marker.”
To begin with, the word “case” in “case particle” and the concept itself are centered on European linguistics.
In synthetic languages (isolating languages, analytic languages), writing is necessary through word order or verbs.
In fusional languages, there is case inflection.
Therefore, saying that “case” is the essence of language and that all languages, including agglutinative languages like Japanese, have cases is a kind of sophistry or fallacy of generalizing the specific.
Well, if you tweak the definition of case, you might be able to define all Japanese particles as “case particles.”
The Japanese particle “wa” only indicates what the topic is, and while it can sometimes be regarded as a subject if “wa” is attached, it is essentially not a particle that indicates a subject.
The Japanese “ga” is also the same; it is a particle for introducing a new noun, and while it can be used as a subject, it can be said that it does not exist for the purpose of being used as a subject.
For Japanese, whether there is a subject-like thing or not depends on “the field, the situation.”
The same goes for objects, direct objects, indirect objects, complements, intransitive verbs, and transitive verbs.
There are predicates that work like intransitive or transitive verbs, but this might be a semantic issue rather than a grammatical system. Even if there are predicates that are somewhat intransitive or transitive, please ignore them for now as I declared at the beginning that I would speak in extreme terms.
On the other hand, English requires a subject and a predicate in declarative sentences, although there may be exceptions due to mood (like imperative mood) or various circumstances.
Especially, the verb changes depending on the subject.
There is a regularity in how it conjugates depending on the type of subject.
And whether it takes an indirect object, direct object, complement, etc., is automatically determined by the verb.
Looking at it this way, English can be said to be a language that places words considered important for English from the beginning.
It might be called “Subject-Centered.”
In contrast, Japanese might be called “Predicate-Centered.”
If there is a predicate, in some cases, nothing else is needed; you can add something else, but it is not mandatory.
It might even be said in the extreme that everything other than the predicate is a modifier.
Following Western linguistics, distinctions are sometimes made between the subject part, predicate part, and modifier part, but it might be cleaner to combine the subject part and the modifier part.
From this viewpoint, Japanese can be called a “Predicate-Centered” language.
Noun (Substantive) and Predicate (Declinable Word, Verb), Morphology and Function, Realism and Structuralism, Set Theory and Category Theory
I wrote that English is subject-centered, but from another perspective, English can be called a “Noun (Substantive) Centered” language.
In contrast, Japanese can be called a “Predicate (Declinable Word, Verb) Centered” language.
In logic, there is predicate logic.
This is learned after propositional logic in elementary logic.
First-order predicate logic is probably mandatory even at the introductory level of logic.
There are higher-order predicate logics and logics that are not predicate logic, but those are learned at a slightly higher level of logic.
Predicate logic includes variables, which are nouns.
There is logic where verbs or predicates are made into variables, but that is not learned at the elementary level.
Since this lower-order predicate logic uses nouns as variables, it is compatible with Realism and Set Theory.
It can be said that nouns, or things, Realism, and Set Theory are compatible with each other.
Also, in medicine and other fields, there is a custom of discussing things by dividing them into morphology and function.
This morphology is also compatible with nouns, Realism, and Set Theory.
Then English can be viewed as a Realist language.
Should we call it a worldview that constructs reality with Logos?
Japanese contrasts with English and leans toward another pole.
Japanese can be described as a Predicate-based, Structuralist, Category Theoretic, and Functionalist language.
It is a language positioned such that Logos is insufficient or unable to construct the world, or is used as a substitute because there is no other way, or does not recognize the reality of the world in the first place, or does not care if it deviates from the world.
This is somewhat compatible with modern philosophy.
This contrasts with English being compatible with modernism.
This is one of the reasons why the Western cultural sphere and Japan cannot become the same with just superficial changes in systems or the like.
I think essayist Natsuhiko Yamamoto wrote, “Japan is the Japanese language,” and that is exactly right.
I wrote before that the major difference between Japan and the Western cultural sphere lies in the “Heart,” and both here and there represent a major disconnect.
To eliminate the disconnect, something radical would be needed, like destroying one of the languages and replacing the heart, religion, or spirituality—something like enslavement during the colonial or imperialist era—but fortunately or unfortunately, Japan did not enslave, nor did the West become Japan’s slave.
Well, it doesn’t have to be enslavement.
Is There a Logic to Summarize the Differences in Heart and Language?
The differences in language are as described above.
Since anything can be handled by modern philosophy if one wishes, let’s look at the relationship between heart and language while handling the heart with modern philosophy as well.
Japanese people are a culture that values what is felt and emotions that well up.
It is a culture where the idea is accepted that one may prioritize feelings and sensibilities towards non-human living things, non-living things, or even abstract concepts that are not things.
Rather, there is a way of thinking that encourages or considers it good to actively put one’s heart into whatever the object is.
The difference between European languages and Japanese corresponds to the difference between Realism and Structuralism.
I have studied other Indo-European languages like Arabic and Hindi, but I don’t remember much, so I can’t say for sure.
On the other hand, I have studied English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Classical Latin, and Classical Greek, and while there are points that fit the above theory, there seems to be a difference in distance depending on the language and culture.
In contrast, the difference between Western thought and Japanese culture regarding the heart—whether it be Realism, Structuralism, or whatever—is a matter of stance towards the tolerance, acceptance, and recognition of consistency and non-consistency. Thus, it is a modern philosophical problem, but also a problem with a larger perspective of modern thought.
Structuralism holds whether it is consistent or not.
On the other hand, things that are consistent structuralism and akin to modern mathematical foundations become excellent learning materials for structuralism.
However, since it deals with various things from linguistics, which deals with non-consistent things, to various humanities, to things like Marxism (Althusser) which pretends not to be inconsistent but is full of contradictions, historically modern thought has often been discussed humanistically. Despite modern mathematics being an excellent model of structuralism, modern thinkers, modern philosophers, and modern mathematicians tend not to interfere with each other.
I don’t know if they are unaware or doing it on purpose.
Furthermore, the Emptiness theory (Sunyata), Madhyamaka (Middle Way), and the Three Truths theory of Mahayana Buddhism are excellent models or thoughts of the same quality as modern philosophy, but there is also a tendency for both sides not to interfere with each other.
It is strange that I don’t know if this is due to lack of awareness or intentional.
If this is pointed out properly, it should become a bridge connecting Western thought, Eastern thought, natural science, technology, and mathematics.
Below, I will explain in detail the correspondence and contrast between English ~ Realism ~ Set Theory ~ Morphology and Japanese ~ Structuralism ~ Category Theory ~ Function.
Correspondence: English ~ Set Theory, Japanese ~ Category Theory
1. English (Western Languages) = Set Theoretic
“Relationship of belonging between Element and Set”
The English worldview is obsessed with defining that a “Thing (Object/Element)” firmly exists first, and determining “which Set it belongs to.”
- Emphasis on “Element”:In English, nothing begins unless the Subject ($S$), which is an “Element ($x$),” is determined first.
- Example: “$I$ am a student.”
- Formula: $I \in Students$ (The element “I” belongs to the set “Students”)
- Static “Be”:The basis of English is “A is B.” This is optimized for describing set-theoretic inclusion relationships ($A \subset B$ or $a \in B$).
- Worldview:It is an atomistic and realistic approach that says, “The world is a collection of independent particles (individuals), and understanding is classifying and defining them.”
2. Japanese = Category Theoretic
“Chain of Morphisms and Composition”
The Japanese worldview is not interested in the content (Black Box) of the “Thing (Object)” itself, but focuses on “how things are related (Morphism)” and “how they change (Composition).”
- Emphasis on “Morphism”:The “Predicate” in Japanese corresponds to the “Morphism (Arrow: $f$)” in Category Theory.In Japanese, even without a Subject (Object $A$), a sentence is formed as long as there is an action (Morphism) like “eat ($f$).”
- In Category Theory, structure is discussed only through arrows (relationships) without looking at the content of objects, which is exactly like Japanese.
- Particles = Designation of Domain and Codomain of the Morphism:Particles like “ga,” “o,” and “ni” are markers that designate whether the noun is the “Domain” (start point) or “Codomain” (end point) of the arrow.
- Auxiliary Verbs = Composition of Morphisms:This is the highlight of the hypothesis.The agglutinative structure of Japanese (Verb + Auxiliary Verb + Auxiliary Verb…) is exactly the Composition of functions (Composition of morphisms).
- Sentence: “Tabe-sase-taku-nakatta” (Did not want to make [someone] eat)
- Decomposition: Eat ($f$) → Make/Let (Causative $g$) → Want (Desire $h$) → Not (Negation $i$) → Past ($j$)
- Formula: $j \circ i \circ h \circ g \circ f$
3. Japanese as a “Yoneda Lemma” Language
Category Theory has an important theorem called “Yoneda Lemma.” Loosely translated, it states that “the true identity of an object $A$ is completely determined by the totality of arrows entering it and arrows leaving it.”
- English: Defines the self (reality) first, saying “I ($I$)…”
- Japanese: Does not define the self, but lets the self emerge as a bundle of relationships (arrows) like “seen by…,” “speak with…,” “feel…”
The Japanese sense that “I exist only within relationships” or “I exist because there is a field (Ba)” is exactly the Category Theoretic approach of “not looking at the object itself but embedding the object through morphisms (relationships).”
Conclusion: Japanese is the “Mathematics of Relationships”
- English: The language of “Box (Set)” and “Content (Element).” The Subject, a Dot, creates the world.
- Japanese: The language of “Arrow (Morphism)” and “Transformation (Composition).” The Predicate, a Vector, creates the world.
The theory that “Japanese has no subject (it is unnecessary)” is mathematically perfectly consistent if rephrased as “In Category Theory, the Object is merely a node for arrows, and the protagonist is strictly the Morphism (Arrow).”
Correspondence in Medicine: Morphology (Anatomy, Histology, Pathology) ~ Set Theory/Realism AND Function (Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology) = Category Theory/Structuralism
1. Morphology = Set Theoretic & Realism
The World of “Anatomy, Histology, Pathology”
- Set Theoretic:
- Anatomy is essentially the study of classifying body parts into “Sets” and “Elements.”
- “Stomach” and “Intestines” are elements contained within the set “Digestive System” ($Stomach \in DigestiveSystem$).
- In cytology, we perform a binary logical classification: “Does this cell belong to the ‘Set of Cancer Cells’ or not?”
- Realism:
- There is an overwhelming sense of reality as a “Thing.” The fact that “the liver is here” is emphasized as “Being there as matter,” regardless of whether it is functioning or not (even if it is a corpse).
- It is a world dominated by the act of giving immutable “names” (Nominalism).
2. Function = Category Theoretic & Structuralism
The World of “Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology”
- Category Theory:
- In physiology and metabolic maps, the protagonist is not the organ itself (Object) but “how substances flow from A to B (Morphism).”
- Glycolysis and the citric acid cycle are huge diagrams of “Composition of morphisms called chemical reactions.”
- The “Heart” as a thing is not important; the process (arrow) of “pumping blood” is the essence.
- Structuralism:
- Hormones and receptors have no meaning existing in isolation. Their value is determined by what role they play within the network (structure) of the entire system, like a “key and keyhole.”
- “Dynamic Equilibrium (Homeostasis)” is a state where the structure (relationship) of the entire system is maintained even if individual elements are replaced. This is exactly a structuralist view of life.
3. Medicine is the Integration of “Realism” and “Structure”
Using this organization makes the difficulty and interest of medicine clear.
- Diagnosis:
- The work of observing the patient’s “Function (Category Theoretic process abnormality)” and dropping it into “Morphology (Set Theoretic disease name box).”
- Example: “Feel short of breath (Functional abnormality)” → Test → Classify into “Heart Failure (Set of disease names).”
- Treatment:
- Surgery is an approach to physically resect and reconstruct “Morphology (Set Theoretic Reality).”
- Internal medication is an approach to intervene in “Function (Category Theoretic Pathway)” and change the flow (arrow).
Conclusion: The Strongest Learning Model
The schema “Morphology = Set Theory/Realism” vs. “Function = Category Theory/Structuralism” serves as a compass for medical students when they are about to drown in massive memorization.
- “Since it’s Anatomy now, let’s switch to Set Theory mode and define ‘Names and Locations of Things’.”
- “Next is Physiology, so let’s switch to Category Theory mode and follow ‘Flow and Relationships’.”
By switching the brain’s OS in this way, learning efficiency should improve dramatically.
Conclusion
There are broadly two views on language.
One is Logocentrism, or Logos Supremacy, which draws from the lineage of the Bible and Ancient Greek philosophy that became the foundation of modern Western thought.
Simply put, this is the idea that asserts the supremacy of language and that language can express everything in the world.
The other is something like the hypothesis proposed relatively recently by Sapir and Whorf.
Generally, this is the idea that linguistic structure determines human mental structure, but an extended version of this hypothesis leads to the opposite of Logos Supremacy: Non-Logos Supremacy, or perhaps Logos Inferiority.
This is the idea that language can describe only a part of the world, or not even a part, or that compared to the size and depth of the whole world, language is something tiny, or can only create a crude (perhaps “crude” is too strong, so “clumsy” is fine) imitation.
The former, represented by English and Western languages, or the Indo-European family, became a massive force swallowing practically Christianity, Islam, and even Semitic Judaism, and swept the world especially in modern times.
On the other hand, there is the idea that non-text-reliant (Furyu-monji) languages surviving in tiny, Galapagos-like minor regions like Buddhism and Japan, or special places where ancient layers of human culture remain, cannot describe the world. Ironically, this was also the conclusion of modern philosophy, which is the conclusion of Western thought.
Knowing these viewpoints tentatively will be useful for Japanese people learning languages including their own, and for foreigners learning Japanese language and culture. Furthermore, it should serve as a relatively good guideline when learning various academic disciplines.