Absurd Ambitions

"Consciousness of linguistic action generally is needed if men are to temper the absurd ambitions that have their source in faulty terminologies" (317).

Burke claims that language can fix the problematic behaviors of men. He also claims that language is transcendent ( example . . . "true and false transendences in language" " are [delightful] "transcendences" 319-20). But if language is transcendent and, as Burke says, a "constitution is a substance" or rather language is substance, then language is empty and therefore not transcendent (342). This makes me wonder if, not claim that, we should not see language as a panacea. In Kant's terms, "understanding" is inherently linguistic; sense and intuition prefigure understanding ("objects are given to us by means of sensibility ('the passive') and it alone yields intuition") (187-88). So how can language be transcendent? Wouldn't it be an object? This seems important because Burke censures men for having "absurd ambitions," but their "absurd ambitions" are not entirely caused by language, they're caused by something like emotions, uninfluenced by language and entirely non-generalizable. Maybe the "political or financial cult of empire" is not a "sickness," as Burke calls for us to generalize (317). In fact, if said absurd ambitions are rooted in 'the passive' then I wonder if behaviors such as "ambition" & "absurd ambitions" are not faulty terminologies. Then here I am possibly considering suggesting that Burke ought to change his word choice as a way to resolve his problem with making hasty generalizations.