Question

Good afternoon!
1. The analytic philosophers hold that whatever cannot be pointed to by means of a word does not exist. If so, according to them it is impossible to understand the concept of a “parable,” whose purpose is to hint at / describe what cannot be understood on its own in words. In their view such a thing could not exist and would be nonsense. (After all, even regarding physical concepts, in their view there is nothing genuinely similar to anything else, since in order for there to be similarity between two items, such as a triangle, one would need the idea of “triangle”; but according to them one cannot speak about such a concept. So they follow Aristotle here, but in a more extreme way?)
2. Seemingly they contradict themselves, and their position has no validity at all, because in order to formulate it they have to use terms such as “fiction” (that is,
what we say, even though it says nothing, is itself a fiction without substance). But the concept of “fiction” itself cannot be pointed to, so logical empiricism
cannot in principle explain what it is rejecting and what it is saying, since in order to describe it (another impossible word) it necessarily uses non-real concepts. (They cannot even say the word “to point,” according to their own view.)
Thank you very much!