1
   

Thought is pre-language Our thoughts are not in language

 
 
pam69ur
 
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 10:45 am
It is argued that thought is pre-linquistic. That any attempt to find the essence of thought ends in self-contradiction or paradox. Any attempt to assign an essence to thought ie language images concepts or any "thing" ends in self-contradiction What ever thought is it cannot be rationally discovered What ever constitutes thought will remain forever a mystery Its nature or essence is outside the possiblities of language and logic to discover. Analytical philosophers claims that thought is language-that without language there can be no thought collapse into self-contradiction and with it the whole anayltical philosophical enterprise of a language based language centred thought philosophy


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/contentlessthought.pdf Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views].
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,132 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 12:15 pm
@pam69ur,
pam69ur,

I just thought this might prove of interest.

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1999/15618/15618-11.pdf
pam69ur
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 09:24 am
@boagie,
Thanks

a very interesting article -it lends support to deans claims
whitehead and dean are very similar to some forms of Buddhism ie zen which argues that it is only by non-thought that one can have true insight into the ulitimate
Bodhidharmma the founder of zen when Hui-K'o asked him "I have not yet found peace of mind. Please grant me peace of mind." Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind and I will show you peace." Eka, "I cannot grasp it." Bodhidharma then said," Then I have shown you peace of mind."

Dean shows the paradoxes that are encounted when one looks for the essence of thought Dean' paradoxes could have been what Hui-ko encounted when he searched for the mind
Dean and Hui-ko both discovered that thought mind could not be grasped- at least in deans case intelectually
0 Replies
 
chad3006
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 10:59 am
@pam69ur,
In my own experience, I agree that thought is pre-language. The complexity of thought is usually poorly expressed with language.

Language, is the basic medium of propaganda and mind control. I've heard that companies spend $6 out of $10 on advertising (the most basic propaganda). If it didn't work, why would they spend that much? Frank Luntz makes a fine living choosing the right words for PR campaigns.
0 Replies
 
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 11:21 am
@pam69ur,
Here's just a what if to keep this going. What if language was pre-thought? What if we were created with a perfect language, and the language fueled our thoughts? Just a thought. lol.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 12:07 pm
@Baloo72,
Baloo72 wrote:
Here's just a what if to keep this going. What if language was pre-thought? What if we were created with a perfect language, and the language fueled our thoughts? Just a thought. lol.


Baloo,Smile

If language were prethought what would its function then be? With no content, what would take on the form of language? You would have then,form without function,form without substance.I think the key is,everything is relational,nothing can be considered in isolation.One might consider into the equation the property of emotion,for is it not emotion which is the marrow of life and the catalist for the mutual shareing of our subjective experiences,thus shareing, thus language.:eek:
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 09:32 am
@pam69ur,
well, like I said, I was just trying to keep this going. Smile
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 10:49 am
@Baloo72,
Baloo72 wrote:
well, like I said, I was just trying to keep this going. Smile


Baloo72,Smile

Quality and quantity second:D
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 09:03 pm
@pam69ur,
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/TheRealGarf/chased.jpg

Translation: THAT THING CAN'T BE KILLED WITH A STICK!! RUN!!!!
0 Replies
 
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:58 pm
@pam69ur,
I've had a while to think this over and I think I came up with a better idea than my last one (blunder. . .). Thought developed before language. Language developed out of a need to communicate thoughts. That is the general trend of language and thoughts, but with an individual thoughts and language work hand in hand. Without language (communication), thoughts are limited. When a new word comes up with young children they become curious about it and it can spark a new idea in their heads. The converse is also true, people can have thoughts but not have the right words to express it, new words are made. Any thoughts on this?
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 09:46 pm
@pam69ur,
Anthropologically language and thought probably co-evolved.

But the real question philosophically is the following:

Which can exist without the other?

Language cannot exist without thought. There is no way. But thought can indeed exist without language.

How complex could thoughts be without language? Well, if you took a potential brilliant philosophical genius at infancy, raised him in a room with no features, never let him interact with other humans, never taught him a language, and he survived to adulthood, what could he think? Could he ever generate complex thoughts? Could he understand anything more than the most basic cause and effect relationships?

The thing is that our thoughts are trained and nurtured by interaction with others, chiefly our parents and siblings, but also in school. And language (whether spoken or Braille or sign language or whatever) is the common currency of that growth process.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 09:59 pm
@pam69ur,
Interesting topic! I'll be interested to hear what some others think. I've wondered about this idea before, and I came to the conclusion that without language, we would be extremely limited in our ability to organize any complex thoughts. We could think in terms of pictures, feelings (touch), smells/tastes, and emotions... I've thought it would be interesting to learn from someone like Helen Keller what it had been like to live without language, and in her specific case, without sight. :eek:
0 Replies
 
Doobah47
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 10:22 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Anthropologically language and thought probably co-evolved.


Somehow I disagree with that, I think forms of language predated metaphysical thought; that there were sounds made before people learnt to think more deeply than simply imagining reality. Surely dreams are the key to deciding when thought and subconscious mechanisms began.

Quote:

How complex could thoughts be without language? Well, if you took a potential brilliant philosophical genius at infancy, raised him in a room with no features, never let him interact with other humans, never taught him a language, and he survived to adulthood, what could he think? Could he ever generate complex thoughts? Could he understand anything more than the most basic cause and effect relationships?

The thing is that our thoughts are trained and nurtured by interaction with others, chiefly our parents and siblings, but also in school. And language (whether spoken or Braille or sign language or whatever) is the common currency of that growth process.


I personally believe that our innermost thoughts are ineffable, far too abstract and metamorphic to be expressed in a linear fashion. I also believe that language is an outlet for human's expression, one which negates the expression of violence. Often violence occurs when the ineffable thought behind an expression is too much for the individual. So what I'm saying is that use of language allows us to express rather than repress, which benefits the reduction of primal instincts.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 06:45 pm
@pam69ur,
Assuming a structured rule governed system of thought/cognition, communicated or not, can be argued to be language. Thought of any kind would be done in a language even pictoral thinking is representational and holds semantic properties. To not be considered a language would make all thought to chaotic to express in an external language, sort of like an analogy between Microsoft word using binary but we read whatever it produces.
Quatl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2008 11:56 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Assuming a structured rule governed system of thought/cognition, communicated or not, can be argued to be language. Thought of any kind would be done in a language even pictoral thinking is representational and holds semantic properties. To not be considered a language would make all thought to chaotic to express in an external language, sort of like an analogy between Microsoft word using binary but we read whatever it produces.


This doesn't quite work for me.

Language does not hold semantic properties. Language does hold syntactic properties. Semantics is something that happens only in the interpreters of language, that is speakers and listeners.

More generally I think the distinction between symbol and meaning is an important one.

Ordered syntax symbolisms are only one of the tools we use internally.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2008 02:21 pm
@Quatl,
Syntax is just as subject to interpretation as semantics, they do not separate, if you want to throw "Colorless Green Ideas" out as a counter all that does is show that semantics and syntax aren't the same operation, however "green sleep colorless ideas furiously" is subject to syntactic interpretation, the same way as if i added nonsense words into a syntactically sound sentence structure.
0 Replies
 
Quatl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2008 07:55 pm
@pam69ur,
I didn't mean syntax within a single sentence, which is certainly as you say.

If you look at a particular language as used in a book say, there is information about syntax contained in the structure of the word patterns themselves. This is possible even if you don't know the meaning of the words at all. You can for example determine that certain phrase patterns are reused with different symbols. Although there are some syntactical rules that rely on the meanings of the words you can determine the patterns even if you know nothing of meaning.

This doesn't appear to me to be true for semantics.

There is a reason that MS-Word can somewhat check your grammar, but can't offer suggestions to improve semantic clarity. Semantics is a much more difficult engineering problem than syntax.

I'm not saying it is impossible that Word (or other software) may someday do this to one degree or another, just that it's not the same kind of problem. Semantics requires something more than just the structure of the words, what more it requires I don't know exactly. If I did I'd be very wealthy, very soon Smile
0 Replies
 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2008 04:23 am
@pam69ur,
Quote:

I'm not saying it is impossible that Word (or other software) may someday do this to one degree or another, just that it's not the same kind of problem. Semantics requires something more than just the structure of the words, what more it requires I don't know exactly. If I did I'd be very wealthy, very soon Smile


Does semantics require a subjective, emotional connection to the words? Perhaps that is a major difference between semantics and syntax. While a sentence can be properly written or spoken (syntax), what it means go far beyond the words themselves. Although, when we talk about meaning and emotional connections, I think we inevitably spiral into subjective translations, and then we need to figure out how each subjective translation interrelates
Quatl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2008 06:08 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Does semantics require a subjective, emotional connection to the words? Perhaps that is a major difference between semantics and syntax. While a sentence can be properly written or spoken (syntax), what it means go far beyond the words themselves. Although, when we talk about meaning and emotional connections, I think we inevitably spiral into subjective translations, and then we need to figure out how each subjective translation interrelates


Well The emotive contents and conotations of various words and statements is important to understanding much of what we say primarily because what we feel is very important to us. I imagine an alien with different emotions could possibly exist and would have great difficulty understanding what we mean, while still understanding what we "said." Now that I think about it that happens all the time between us anyhow Smile
0 Replies
 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2008 12:21 pm
@pam69ur,
Quote:

I imagine an alien with different emotions could possibly exist and would have great difficulty understanding what we mean, while still understanding what we "said."


How do you define: "What we 'said'"?

How can a being understand what I am saying without understanding what I mean?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Thought is pre-language Our thoughts are not in language
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 02:10:48