The Problem of Language

Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in -
Great for solving problems after it creates a problem.
-Modest Mouse, 'Blame it on the Tetons'

Can an idea exist separate from the word we use to identify it? How do concepts arise in our minds?

Would I know that a tree is a tree if I had never learned a word for it? Or would I think of it as a collection of branches and leaves and bark? Is a tree those things, or is it something more?

These questions are so hard. At the heart really lies the problem of 'being' - what 'is'? What does it mean for something to 'be'? Does it mean that we can talk about it? I think so. It seems like there are two answers to these questions. 'Being' is there so much as we can understand that it is there. If we can't understand or comprehend something, we can't even talk about it's being. On the other hand, we obviously exist somewhere, and a 'where' can really only exist in relation to other 'wheres'.

In a way, both 'classical' answers to this question have to be true. Something can only be said to 'be' if it 'is' in relation to something else. There must be an observer. However, we can't say that the action of observing is what gives something its being - things must exist separate from our observation and comprehension. I think the only obvious answer to the question is to live in tension between the two answers. This makes so little sense I think I'll be done for now.