The political order was always expected to provide more than the independence of each individual and the security of the community.
Somewhere between all the claims that support and diversify the political ideals, it is the hope that the political order could offer solutions to the difficulties met in the common interrelations between individuals. In short, there are the difficulties of keeping the men together in spite of their differences. Since the differences are felt as such when they are expressed by language, human beings wait for a state that neglects their essential characteristic of being equipped with language.
As an extreme means of embodying the political ideal, the political utopias about ideal cities should be granted as innocent attempts to dismiss the language as an instrument of dividing people. They are really innocent when the language pushes itself to something farther than the cities where the language sets the political order.
In the same manner, the religious utopias could be accepted as long they do not pretend to shape by words the human order. Also, they appear to be human attempts to find a way of being together with each other by abandoning the language. The personal prayer is in fact an act of refuting the language as an instrument of communication and, therefore, as a possibility of dividing people.
The self-denying of the distinctive feature of speaking was often understood as a renouncement to the human nature altogether for a divine one. However, to give to such self-denying a name – the wish for a divine nature – is an appeal to the language that was intended to be abandoned.
Thus, the perpetual inquietude of man for the political order and the perpetual preoccupation for a religious life have the same origin: the need of keeping the men together without words. In both cases, the self-denying of human nature gave martyrs. It is easy to renounce to the life itself when it is abandoned such a distinctive feature as language.