How can you think and work things out if you cannot speak?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have been debating this question for a while now, and I still havn't come up with an answer that is satisfying enough. I have thought that maybe we do not think if we cannot speak, but then how do we breath and eat? Maybe we just feel the need for things an do not speak at all? But then how do we know what we need by the feelings that we get? All of these questions came to me whilst sitting in my English class, in college, whilst studying Feral Children. There are more things bothering me, that appeared while sturying this phenomenon, but this is the one that bothers me the most. I will post the other questions further down this topic once people have found other answers.
Please help me out here!!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,564 • Replies: 40

No top replies

Re: How can you think and work things out if you cannot spea

Super Squirrel wrote:

I have been debating this question for a while now, and I still havn't come up with an answer that is satisfying enough. I have thought that maybe we do not think if we cannot speak, but then how do we breath and eat? Maybe we just feel the need for things an do not speak at all? But then how do we know what we need by the feelings that we get? All of these questions came to me whilst sitting in my English class, in college, whilst studying Feral Children. There are more things bothering me, that appeared while sturying this phenomenon, but this is the one that bothers me the most. I will post the other questions further down this topic once people have found other answers.
Please help me out here!!

Why would we need to translate what we think or want into language? Language is a public medium. I do not translate what I am thinking, or what I want, into language and then read it back to myself. There would be no point.

0 Replies

Why complicate natural events?

0 Replies

When you are talking of thinking, are you telling me that when you think you are not thinking in any language but in some particular way not concerning language?

0 Replies

Super Squirrel wrote:

When you are talking of thinking, are you telling me that when you think you are not thinking in any language but in some particular way not concerning language?

You can think in language, but it does not inform you of anything. You can inform others through the display called language.

0 Replies

Ah, you are quite right there, but try thinking without the use of your mother tongue (own language). Even if you use pictures in your mind to think, you still have to think of the word that describes them to bring them up. Also, how would you know what you are thinking without using language to understand yourself?

0 Replies

Super Squirrel wrote:

Ah, you are quite right there, but try thinking without the use of your mother tongue (own language). Even if you use pictures in your mind to think, you still have to think of the word that describes them to bring them up. Also, how would you know what you are thinking without using language to understand yourself?

Quote:

Also, how would you know what you are thinking without using language to understand yourself?

Knowledge is the report of perception so you would not need knowledge to get on with things. We do not make a report and then repeat it back to ourselves. We must already have the idea, so to translate it into language and then back again into the idea, would be pointless.

0 Replies

Hi Supe,

Just for the record I always think (ponder) in language. I have no idea as to whether or not this is a universal human trait but it's a good question.

If it's related I always dream in color also.

I would hazard a guess that the learning of language has supplanted whatever method of organizing our thoughts we were born with; if indeed we were capable of organizing our thoughts (thinking) at that time of life.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have been debating this question for a while now, and I still havn't come up with an answer that is satisfying enough.

Words are overrated. Solving problems can be done without language. After all, language itself is the solution to a problem we've dealt with in becoming what we are today, homo sapiens sapiens.

We, or at least I, think in images. Words come after, applied at need. They are not the beginning of everything, they are merely tools, useful for communication purposes only. And even here they have their limits. I can only communicate with a limited number of species using words. Humans. Monkeys can learn a few thousand words, and dogs a few hundred. If I want to communicate with a cat I have to use other means, like expressions, eye contact and body language.

0 Replies

I'm not thinking in language when I drop something and try to catch it or shift my feet when it is a heavy thing.

Is that relevant?

0 Replies

Depends on what the thing is. If it's your "unmentionables" it is probably just a result of good breeding.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I'm not thinking in language when I drop something and try to catch it or shift my feet when it is a heavy thing.

Is that relevant?

I would say that you are indeed thinking in language. After all, is there not some thought process which involves language which says to you "Hey let me try to catch this." or "Gosh golly, I had best get out of the way or this falling item may crush my toes." Question

If one does not have language then I would say that no language skills are involved; however, as soon as even the most basic language is formed it will be used in every aspect of life.

0 Replies

I disagree sturgis. Language is a tool. You want to cut a piece of wood in two you use a saw. If you want someone else to do it you use language.

If it was as you suggested then every one would be world class writers.

Some people might run around applying this tool to whatever they encounter, like a fool carpenter trying to drive in a nail with his chisel, but that does not mean that everything revolves around the word.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I disagree sturgis. Language is a tool. You want to cut a piece of wood in two you use a saw. If you want someone else to do it you use language.

If it was as you suggested then every one would be world class writers.

Some people might run around applying this tool to whatever they encounter, like a fool carpenter trying to drive in a nail with his chisel, but that does not mean that everything revolves around the word.

I still believe in the idea of language being used. In your example, at the very least the words and language are used to process the thought of cutting a piece of wood, either by ones self or by another.

As to the idea of all of us being writers, well, that is another matter. Language at the most basic is one thing, but to string words together in a more comprehensive form for a book or a full length story is something else entirely. If a man knows, let's say for arguments sake, 100 words, he can communicate and he will use these words for thought process, therefore using language. Perhaps his collection of words includes the following: hot, cold, warm, good, bad, yes, no, maybe, help, you, me, some, all, carry, leave, throw, drop, eat, drink, sleep, wash, give, take, day, night, up, down, all, some, none, any... With a set of words in their brain and in their being, any and all actions will involve their language in some way even if in only the most basic and peripheral form.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

spendius wrote:
I'm not thinking in language when I drop something and try to catch it or shift my feet when it is a heavy thing.

Is that relevant?

I would say that you are indeed thinking in language. After all, is there not some thought process which involves language which says to you "Hey let me try to catch this." or "Gosh golly, I had best get out of the way or this falling item may crush my toes." If one does not have language then I would say that no language skills are involved; however, as soon as even the most basic language is formed it will be used in every aspect of life.

You are saying that everything you think must be put into language before you can think it? Or are you saying that everything you think comes with language already in place? If the latter were the case, how could you fully describe what you see from second to second, without missing something out? But again, what would be the point of translating experience to language?

First of all you presented the argument that we need language, then you presented a less strong version that says that language is always used when we are able to use it. Yet still, neither of these positions address the point that for the individual, translating experience to language is pointless.

0 Replies

Super Squirrel wrote:

Ah, you are quite right there, but try thinking without the use of your mother tongue (own language). Even if you use pictures in your mind to think, you still have to think of the word that describes them to bring them up. Also, how would you know what you are thinking without using language to understand yourself?

I happen to think one can do quite a lot of thinking without words. I know this by two examples.

1) Babies. They do a lot of thinking before they have words. They can figure out cause and affect without language. They can get food in their mouths without the use of words. They can learn to walk and they can chase puppies. One would have to think to do that but babies usually don't have very good language skills until at least 18 months of age, by which time they have already figured out quite a few things.

2) Myself. When I'm in the midst of a difficult problem at work, I am beyond language. How do I know this? Because I can't speak. It takes several minutes for me to "come out of it" to where I can communicate with someone. If I had been thinking in words, there would be no need to change gears from thinking to communication, I would simply be able to say what I was thinking. Anyone else have experiences like that?

0 Replies

Spendius,

I move my foot instinctively but I always say D--n Laughing

0 Replies

Hey, interesting topic. Very Happy

My take on this is that there are many ways of thinking.
Word language is one (verbal).
There are many other 'languages'. Example: conceptual, sensual, numerical, intuitive, etc.

Basically, you don't need words to think. Verbal language is but one form of thought.

0 Replies

Quote:

Myself. When I'm in the midst of a difficult problem at work, I am beyond language. How do I know this? Because I can't speak. It takes several minutes for me to "come out of it" to where I can communicate with someone. If I had been thinking in words, there would be no need to change gears from thinking to communication, I would simply be able to say what I was thinking. Anyone else have experiences like that?

All the time. I often experience massive difficulties in finding the proper wording for a thought, wich I'm sure everyone experiences at some point. That is because a thought is not words.

Another thing, I make music. When doing that I can sit for hours with many thoughts in my head, but no words. It takes longer to say "E minor" than it takes to think the chord.

By the way, I noticed that we're using the terms "words" and "language" almost as one. Come to think of it the words aren't all that important even in conversation. I believe it is something like 80% of the message that is delivered through body language and tone of voice. When you think about it it becomes evident that the written word is hugely overrated in these matters. At least, that is my opinion.

0 Replies

Perhaps any form of language that does not rely on speaking such as sign language or writing. It would be an added hassle, but it is a possible solution.

0 Replies

How can you think and work things out if you cannot speak?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know