Hehe, Ji Bolun's famous saying. This involves the incommensurability between the characteristics of language and thinking. Language is usually used as a tool, which is not wrong, but the more important attribute of language than being a tool is actually a framework that stipulates that we look at all problems. From this point of view, we can say that human beings created language, and then language became an entity independent of human will, and then dominated people. This process is actually a process of alienation.

Oh, I didn't elaborate. Let me add something.

What language we think in actually determines how we think. For example, "Cogito, So? This kind of thinking is because in Latin, the word "Cogito" means that "I think" is a whole, and the word "I" here cannot exist alone in a language without "thinking" (although some people in Latin call pronouns, this personal pronoun is strictly different from personal pronouns when used as verbs, which are two different things). Therefore, the view that "my entity must have thinking before it exists" is obvious. In Chinese, the pronoun "I" can be the subject of the verb, and the verb must require this subject (even if it is omitted).

As for why language is a cage that imprisons thoughts, it has begun to appear here. However, we can think further, that is, whether thoughts are one-dimensional like language (because sound is one-dimensional, the language conveyed by sound must be continuous in time). I can think while listening to others. Although this example is far-fetched, it still proves the non-one-dimensional characteristics of thinking. Therefore, languages and thinking that are completely different in structure are also different in functional fields. This fully proves why language is the cage of thought.