JivinJeffJones
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,702
- MBTI Type
- INFP
NLA
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that we cannot ultimately separate rational thought from language-- even though we're capable of thinking wordlessly, we're still thinking wordlessly in a mind constrained (and, in other ways, set free) by language. There's still the one-degree-of-separation between the ineffable and our thought processes, and it's because of our language. It is still ineffable, but the rigor that language imposes on the brain prevents us from fully experiencing the ineffable.
Do you remember how emotions seemed so much more raw before you had the linguistic skills to symbolize them? Now that you can say "I feel angry," anger has less potency.
You're right about that, rational though can not be seperated from language, though rational though is first given rise to by intuitive hunches, feelings, or ideas that are not yet rational thoughts. So indeed rational thought does end up getting symbolized into something, a language of a sort, even if its not a conventional one.
Yet again we have to be broad with the definition of language, as it can be anything that can be symbolized and it does not have to be something that is compatible with objective linguistics.
What I'm saying is that we cannot ultimately separate rational thought from language-- even though we're capable of thinking wordlessly, we're still thinking wordlessly in a mind constrained (and, in other ways, set free) by language. There's still the one-degree-of-separation between the ineffable and our thought processes, and it's because of our language. It is still ineffable, but the rigor that language imposes on the brain prevents us from fully experiencing the ineffable.
Do you remember how emotions seemed so much more raw before you had the linguistic skills to symbolize them? Now that you can say "I feel angry," anger has less potency.
Hmmmm doesn't language in turn give us the ability to explore abstract ideas better? For only by limiting the scope of what we focus on can we puzzle out the details...
I think I kinda know what you're talking about. That's exactly what gets me called "Off the wall."The joys of childhood... I really miss it too.
So there can be rational thoughts without words? I'm not sure if anybody else have done this, but I sometimes talk to my ummm altered ego? in my head. It's a way of clearing things up by talking to myself. I really wanted to track these conversations but whenever I tried to do that it just doesn't work well. Typing it out, way too slow. The process of typing means I have to repeat everything that is said to myself in order to type. Even speaking out loud and recording doesn't work. Because then I have to repeat what the voice in my head said. It interrupts the flow of the conversation. Also you can convey thoughts about an idea so much quicker in your head without words. It's almost like flashing isolated images with continously running emotion as commetary. The whole incident is over within a second or two. Something you just can't record in words. But that has always been more about experiencing something rather than like thinking to me. Hmmmm...
That's a broader definition than I sense (or intuit?) the OP intended.
For our species, language acquisition was a trade-off, and it was worth it by far (IMO), but we did lose some of our capacity for fully experiencing. Language becomes a buffer zone between a person and their experiences.
It is true that language becomes fundamental to our thought, yet again when we deal with raw ideas, we seem to be working with entities that are devoid of symbolism. But when we go on to reflect on it and present it in an objective fashion, even to ourselves, we then utilize symbolism. Everybody's thought is deeply influenced by language, Js more so than Ps. Yet we should note that ideas in themselves is what actually gave rise to symbols and new ideas can only be influenced by them, yet symbols in themselves could not be immanent within our minds because they first derived from an external source.
It is true that language becomes fundamental to our thought, yet again when we deal with raw ideas, we seem to be working with entities that are devoid of symbolism. But when we go on to reflect on it and present it in an objective fashion, even to ourselves, we then utilize symbolism. Everybody's thought is deeply influenced by language, Js more so than Ps. Yet we should note that ideas in themselves is what actually gave rise to symbols and new ideas can only be influenced by them, yet symbols in themselves could not be immanent within our minds because they first derived from an external source.
I don't see how you can separate it like that. Either we have a linguistic brain or not. I'm not disputing that we can think wordlessly-- I've acknowledged that we do in each of my posts in this thread. But thinking wordlessly in a language-capable brain is probably very different from thinking wordlessly in a wordless brain, IMO.
Thoughts from some Js are no more influenced by language then Ps... it should be based on what your dominant introverted function when it comes to thinking, whether that's perceiving or judging. Question about symbols... Where do the first words orginate from if not within the mind of an individual? Therefore somewhere way back in time... the first symbol was synthesized internally.
Ask Helen Keller.
Second, I don't know that we're asking the right questions. Once we learn language it is tied up in everything we do. Language is you. You can't separate language from anything you're thinking about. Either (1) we all have an innate language template, and the question is moot, or (2) all but a very few exceptions are exposed to language at a really young age and formalize it before we are capable of full-blown rational thought, in which case the question is pretty much moot.
This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say, but you've said it much more clearly.
And because we're human, philosophy doesn't have a choice but to contend with limitations imposed by language.In short CONCEPTS or WORDs... is not what philosophy should be dealing with.. it must transcend them.
Schopenhauer has foreseen this problem too and once noted 'Philosophy is a science in concepts, not a science of concepts'.