No one can quite see what and how I see, no matter how hard he or she may try. This means that in any particular situation we may not understand things as does the person next to us. And yet, within certain cultural limits and contexts we use the same words and the same language to describe our experiences. One answer is that language is simply inadequate in describing experience. Ultimately words miss the fullness and the uniqueness of our private worlds.
Words fall short because language is essentially social.
It is only through the collectivity of language that we can access experience, the experience of others as well as our own. And so the essentially unique and private qualities of inner experience will ultimately be beyond our linguistic reach. But while our spoken or written words may never coincide with the actual sensibility of our lived experiences, it may still be possible and worthwhile to try to emulate our prereflective life by means of lifeworld-sensitive texts. In this sense human science can practice the paradox of theorizing the unique. Another answer is that language creates and describes an intersubjective lifeworld.