Medical Does Language and Environment Shape Our Thinking?

[Växan]

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

 

[DarkAnt]

I believe you can. I have a very hard time trying to translate complex (or at least to me) ideas to other people because of language. Its easy to think of an idea, but hard to put it into words.

 

[Dissident Dan]

You can. That is not to say that language, as a part of culture, which obviously influences thought, does not influence language.

For most of my childhood, I usually thought wordlessly. Some of my clearer thoughts have been without words. Sometimes, as DarkAnt said, it can be hard to put your ideas into words, sometimes even in your own language.

 

[Växan]

i've had this experience as well

sometimes a thought or emotion arises which has no obvious word to define it
and yet it can be overpowering

but is it possible to have complex thoughts without attaching words to them?
in the form of visual images maybe?

 

[Janitor]

Squirrels manage to think without a language, so I don't see why humans couldn't.

In grade school they showed us a black and white movie about Helen Keller once a year, in just about every school year. I got to where I knew that darn thing verbatim.

She was deaf and blind from an early age, and I am sure that before she learned to communicate by sense of touch she was still plenty sentient. She must have recognized, for instance, that the meal cooking on the stove and putting out the odor of spaghetti (or what have you) meant that within an hour she would be sitting on a chair at a table and eating spaghetti.

 

[Janitor]

sometimes a thought or emotion arises which has no obvious word to define it- Vaxan

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

 

[franznietzsche]

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

Thats oddly specific...

 

[BoulderHead]

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

I wonder if he had any direct observational evidence to support his claim. Personally, I think he was mistaken, as I have known people who thought in different languages than myself, yet never noticed anything out of the ordinary (quite the opposite, in fact). Expressing thoughts in another language can come across seemingly queer (sideways is how I sometimes think it). There are words, even meanings of words, which may be absent from one language to another but generally there seems to be a way to arrive at similar conclusions, so I think they way humans think is similar. Culture can skew outcomes, but I think the process leading to those outcomes is basically the same.

…perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

I would be cautious not to mix what I see as apples and oranges (cultural differences vs thinking processes). That’s my 2-cents, for what it’s worth.

 

[Janitor]

In answer to franznietzsche

I agree that it is specific. I think that the relative rarity of the situation may have to do with why there isn't an English word for it. But for me at least, it is an intense feeling when it does happen, the kind of feeling that leaves an 'aftertaste' for quite some time, if I can put it that way. It was particularly gratifying when it was my mother admonishing my brother for something I had done. I always carried with me a mental list of wrongs I had received at the hands of that little creep so on the rare occasion that I found myself overhearing that sort of thing happening, I was gratified in a way that the word "giddy" comes close to describing, though "giddy" covers a broader range of situations than what I am talking about. Giddiness mixed with a mostly-suppressed feeling of guilt maybe is closer to describing the feeling, along with a touch of dread that he would convince Mom that it was actually I who had done it. But if we just had a single word for it, like "globbly" to make one up on the spot, that would be dandy.

 

[energia]

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

I believe this word already exists in english

'guilt'

17 entries found for guilt.
Entry: guilt
Function: noun
Definition: blame
Synonyms: answerability, blameworthiness, contrition, crime, criminality, culpability, delinquency, dereliction, disgrace, dishonor, error, failing, fault, guiltiness, indiscretion, infamy, iniquity, lapse, liability, malefaction, malfeasance, malpractice, misbehavior, misconduct, misstep, offence, onus, peccability, penitence, regret, remorse, responsibility, self-condemnation, self-reproach, shame, sin, sinfulness, slip, solecism, stigma, transgression, wickedness, wrong

 

[BoulderHead]

Energia,
Since Janitor did not detail how such an event came to pass, it's possible a prank was pulled on someone and a feeling of glee is experienced. I suspect he meant more the way you accepted it though. Still, combined with guilt might also be some sense of relief or other combination of emotion, dunno.

 

[Janitor]

Boulderhead, what I had in mind are situations that were not at all pre-planned to get anybody in trouble, if that is what you mean.

Thanks for doing the legwork, Energia. And yet... None of those synonyms really quite nails down the feeling I am thinking of.

Here is an example: When I was about 9 there was a family that lived across the street for a couple of years. They had a son about two years younger than I was. He had been playing with his tricycle out in the driveway in front of their house. I was too big to fit on the tricycle, but for some reason I held on to the handlebar with one of my hands and made it roll around a bit on the driveway, while my friend was engrossed in something else in the front yard. Then he called me over to where he was. Within minutes his father came out of the house and got in his VW Beetle to go somewhere. As it happens, I had left the tricycle right behind the back bumper of the VW, and the boy's father realized that when the back of his vehicle tipped over the trike and made the trike scrape on the concrete driveway. The man got out of his car and worked the trike out from underneath the car, and then walked over to where we were in the yard. He was all red in the face as I recall, and he said in an angry tone, "Danny! How many times have I told you not to leave things behind the car?"

So my friend got all the blame, and could not put up a believable defense for himself. I knew full well that I was the culprit. I also knew that the right thing to do was to speak up and take the wrath upon myself to get Danny off the hook. But I stood there stone-faced and did nothing. My feelling was more of a mixture of things than the word "guilt" or any of the synonyms for that word can convey.

 

[kcballer21]

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

I've often wondered if two people were able to communicate telepathically, how would they do it? Would they send images of words to each other, or would they transmit actual ideas? It seems unnecessary to have to send your "voice" to another person when communicating telepathically, afterall words are just a representation of our ideas, and usually a crude representation at that.

 

[energia]

So my friend got all the blame, and could not put up a believable defense for himself. I knew full well that I was the culprit. I also knew that the right thing to do was to speak up and take the wrath upon myself to get Danny off the hook. But I stood there stone-faced and did nothing. My feelling was more of a mixture of things than the word "guilt" or any of the synonyms for that word can convey.

I think that many people (children and adults) have had such an experience

now that you've made the situation more clear, I can't seem to think of a single suitable word to fully describe this feeling

 

[BoulderHead]

Perhaps something approaching a paralyzing state of shock ?

 

[mikesvenson]

autism----> thinking in pictures does not require words.
art-------> a visual idea manifested physically without words as in a sketch.

 

[Nicomachus]

All languages are not oral or written people. Let's think this through and while we think this through why don't we try to think about this without using language. Good luck to everyone. While it may be possible to cognize without language I highly doubt it. Nothing any of you have presented has disproven Humboldt's assertion.
*Nico

 

[Janitor]

When I was about 13 years old I tied a chunk of cheddar cheese to a thread, and then tacked the thread to the ceiling of the family living room, such that the cheese was suspended four feet above the floor. I let our hound dog into the house. In a few minutes he went into the room where the cheese was. He picked up the scent, and sniffed around the floor looking for it. After a couple of minutes of such futility he raised his head and sniffed again. Within seconds he looked up just above his head and saw the cheese there, and happy as a clam he raised himself up on hind legs to snag it with his teeth.

Even if you claim that dogs have a language consisting of barks, growls, yelps and wimpers, I don't think you can reasonably claim that dog language can convey the sort of thoughts that had to be processed by our dog in figuring out how to procure his cheesy reward. It is clear to me that he was thinking in a way that his language was completely inadequate to convey. I have to say, if a dog can think non-linguistically, surely humans can too.

 

[mikesvenson]

All languages are not oral or written people. Let's think this through and while we think this through why don't we try to think about this without using language. Good luck to everyone. While it may be possible to cognize without language I highly doubt it. Nothing any of you have presented has disproven Humboldt's assertion.
*Nico

i think in pictures most of the time, then i choose wether or not to convey verbally with language my idea to a friend. this is a very normal thing for me (thinking without mentally talking to myself). I hope I am not missunderstanding the point here. for example, I am a skateboarder, i visualize a trick i want to do, then i visualize myself doing the trick, then i go out and learn it. Thinking in words is far from necesary in all of this process.(unless ofcourse if i wish to describe my achievement to a friend!)

 

[Evo]

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

Langauge has nothing to do with it. It is the culture, not the "language".

Also, language is not necessary for thinking. Our ancestors were quite capable of thought before a formal language evolved. Langauge is just the means of exchanging information between people in a uniform way.

 

[Växan]

of course humans and other animals are capable of visualising objects and events as graphic images (except those who are born blind)

but are they capable of complex analysis (abstract thought) without language?

can the blind think without language?

is mathematics possible without numbers?

can a mathematician process numbers without converting the abstract image of a numeral into a word representing a quantity?

as an experiment take a stopwatch and see how long you can think about the environment around you without a single word entering your mind

 

[Evo]

of course humans and other animals are capable of visualising objects and events as graphic images (except those who are born blind)

Those born deaf have never heard language. When you think, you hear yourself say words in your mind, it would be different for them. Those born deaf and blind have neither, yet they still are capable of thinking.

but are they capable of complex analysis (abstract thought) without language?

That would probably be a better question. Someone deaf & blind would have much more difficulty attaining a higher level of education.

Because we have language, it is difficult for us to imagine anything without it. But to say that the language you speak affects behavior is a bit "out there". I believe that it is not the language but the culture in which you are raised.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Those born deaf have never heard language. When you think, you hear yourself say words in your mind, it would be different for them. Those born deaf and blind have neither, yet they still are capable of thinking.

In recent years, I have been thinking with the voice more and more to the point that it has become an addiction, and I want to sometimes voice my thoughts out loud just for the hell of it. I sometimes miss times when I thought predominantly without the voice.

 

[confutatis]

"Language" is not a well-defined concept, so those kinds of questions are tricky. "Language" can be used to describe something as sophisticated as "upper-class British English" or as simplistic as "Fortran". It's really hard to see much in common between the speech of an English aristocrat and a few lines of code in a computer program, except perhaps for the fact that both are collections of symbols.

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"? And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no". And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.

 

[Evo]

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"? And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no". And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.

Langauge can't always acurately describe things though. Langauge is also subject to interpretation by the person listening or reading. I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things.

Picture something imaginary in your mind. Do you just see it or are you using words to describe it to yourself? I just see it...no words. Therefore language is not necessary for thought.

 

[Kerrie]

i use a lot of pictures in my thinking to envision an idea or plan all the time. words in my thinking are used mainly when i need to convey a specific message (such as when I am conveying my ideas to PF). mikes said that autism is thinking with pictures, but is that really true? i use pictures all the time as i am highly involved with creative projects that require pictures in my head to become real.

evo~"Langauge can't always acurately describe things though. Langauge is also subject to interpretation by the person listening or reading. I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things."

Ironic that you stated this in such a clear and concise manner. :)

 

[confutatis]

Langauge can't always acurately describe things though.

That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about. Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point.

I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling, so I don't use language when I think of these things.

And I'm sure you can give names to every one of those things you can't accurately describe. I can think of a feeling I had last Saturday at 9:12AM and call it "cosmic reevaluation of primordial essentials", and even though you would have no clue what I'm talking about, the meaning of the expression would be as clear in my mind as the feeling itself. In fact, those philosophy boards are filled with people who make up undecipherable expressions which they think should make as much sense to everyone as it does to them...

Picture something imaginary in your mind. Do you just see it or are you using words to describe it to yourself?

I see it, and I can use words to describe it to myself. The former does not exclude the latter.

language is not necessary for thought.

Langauge is to thought what a shadow is to an object. The object exists independently of its shadow, and the shadow cannot exist without the object, but there is no object which does not create a shadow when illuminated. To argue against the isomorphism between thought and language is akin to claiming that one can see invisible objects - nonsense by definition.

 

[BoulderHead]

And I'm sure you can give names to every one of those things you can't accurately describe.

What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?
After all, she did say that “I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling,…”.

…I can think of a feeling I had last Saturday at 9:12AM and call it "cosmic reevaluation of primordial essentials", and even though you would have no clue what I'm talking about, the meaning of the expression would be as clear in my mind as the feeling itself.

That appears good for you, but of what use is it to anyone (yourself included)?

In fact, those philosophy boards are filled with people who make up undecipherable expressions which they think should make as much sense to everyone as it does to them...

But this is truly meaninglessness for, as stated, the expressions are undecipherable and going further still those doing the uttering seem even to be self-deluded into believing others can understand. There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

 

[BoulderHead]

To demonstrate a lone example, there is a feeling I experience when listening to the ambient, downtempo, music of Jose Padillo (in this case the track: Come back) which I cannot name. Were you, dear reader, to listen this music while putting yourself into this, or a similar, photo;

http://fp.superunknown.plus.com/images/cafedelmar_sunset2.jpg

…you might begin only to glimpse what I feel. To truly understand, and how I wish such a thing were possible, you would have to have shared much of my life and experience. It is more complicated than a name or mere words could describe, yet it is very real, even alive. I find in the isolation of our individuality that we are all alone, together. Words can help, but they are not the answer.

 

[Janitor]

"is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"?- confutatis

I am thinking right now about the taste and smell of a sizzling hamburger, fresh off the grille, with onions, mustard, ketchup and lettuce on it. I can do quite well at bringing the sensation to mind. But if asked to describe it in words, I can't come close to doing it justice. Maybe that just shows the inadequacies of my own personal verbal skills, I don't know.

 

[mikesvenson]

first came thought, then came language (verbal expression of thought). Therefore, language isn't necessary for thought, cause if it where, it would have came first. Think before speak = speak not necessary for think.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

the 19th century German Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that language was directly connected to thinking

that people around the world should actually think differently due to their native language

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

perhaps we can take this one step further into the science of Chorology
which is the relationship between thought and native environment

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

An interesting thought (ha ha :-/ ). Well one thing, when i think ( especially when saying things to myself or working out equations) i "think to myself in english" i know a bit of french and a tiny bit of indonesian but i don't know enough to translate. I think (again) it would be possible to think(:-/) without having a language but i couldn't imagine (again :-/) it.

What about those people who talk with that machine that says the things for them, don't they use their minds to make the machine talk? if so what if they are deaf as well and use that since they were born? would they be able to think to make the machine say things? like just think(this is a bit repetitive isn't it?) of an "apple" (which he wouldn't reeally know what is called) and it would say apple for him?

I dono since i havn't studied those machines :-/...Anyway...

 

[confutatis]

What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?

How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.

After all, she did say that “I can think of many things that I would never be able to accurately describe, it could be an object or a feeling,…”.

I was trying to point out that being able to describe a thing to somebody else has nothing to do with our ability to name things. The former is extremely limited, the latter has no limits at all.

That appears good for you, but of what use is it to anyone (yourself included)?

It's not "good for me", it's just a fact. Whether it's useful or not is beside the point. What use is the blueness of the sky? Are we going to ignore the fact that the sky is blue just because it makes no difference?

this is truly meaninglessness for, as stated, the expressions are undecipherable and going further still those doing the uttering seem even to be self-deluded into believing others can understand.

If they are giving names to real phenomena, then they can be understood; it's just a matter of finding others who have a similar level of education and have experienced the same thing. For instance, someone with a good musical education and experience can perfectly understand what "modulation to the dominant major" means; to someone without that education, the sentence is undecipherable.

There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.

 

[BoulderHead]

BoulderHead;
There is no point I can see why you should be suggesting anyone undertake such folly, yet that does appear to be what you recommend.

Confutatis;
I always find it funny when people seem to overreact to the suggestion that language is far more important in their lives than they realize. It's specially ironic considering people spend something like 90% of their waking time either talking to other people or, more often, verbalizing thoughts in their inner voice.

But who is overreacting here?
It seems you have an issue with what you see as people overreacting… You’re right, that is funny!
Why not address my point next time rather than ignoring it to go off on a tangential tirade? After all, it can be seen in your own statement above that 10% remains unaccounted for. I understand you wish to minimize that 10% further still, but I’ll save that for later in this post, so for now let me recap;

Evo stated; “Langauge can't always accurately describe” and that there are many things she personally wouldn’t be able to accurately describe using same. I happen to agree with her statement, but how did you address her point? By informing the reader; “That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about.” This is where I come into note that your comment has absolutely no relation to hers whatsoever and in fact doesn’t help in any way that I am able to see because you yourself even admitted; “Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point”. Well, it's true that your statement was beside her point, but as we shall see it isn't beside your own despite repeatedly having asserted statements to the effect that; “Whether it's useful or not is beside the point”.

Your last post does in fact reveal something of interest;

How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.

Here you confess again the significance of assigning a name is lost to you (you only note it can be done). But in the next passage we dig deeper into your true feelings;

…If they are giving names to real phenomena, then they can be understood; it's just a matter of finding others who have a similar level of education and have experienced the same thing.

Question; Define “real phenomena”
Does it include personal feelings that members have maintained language cannot accurately describe?
I understand from this that in fact you do see a point in the naming, despite having repeatedly professed ignorance of any utility. It seems clear you actually hold a view that understanding is possible between human beings, given the conditions outlined. So, in summary, your actual position seems contrary to some of the statements you have made.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"? And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no".

Can you tell me what it feels like when you masturbate?

 

[confutatis]

I understand from this that in fact you do see a point in the naming, despite having repeatedly professed ignorance of any utility.

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility, I was just trying to make the point that whether you can communicate an experience has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can come up with a name for it. You certainly can't communicate it before you give it a name, so naming must necessarily come before communication. Your position amounts to putting the cart before the hors: let's give names only to things we can communicate. Exactly how do you know you can communicate an idea before you give it a name?

It seems clear you actually hold a view that understanding is possible between human beings, given the conditions outlined.

Wait... I'm not the one coming up with examples of things that supposedly cannot be communicated! It is ironic, even pathetic, to see people say things like "it's impossible to describe the experience of watching the sun set behind the Rocky Mountains on an October afternoon", as if there is more to be described than words can describe. That is nonsense. There is certainly more to our experiences than can be described, but those things by definition cannot be described!

So, in summary, your actual position seems contrary to some of the statements you have made.

You think there's a contradiction in my idea because you can't see the real contradiction. And the real contradiction is the notion that subjective aspects of our experience cannot be communicated. Since language itself is a completely subjective experience, the notion would imply that knowledge of a language cannot be communicated. Which is obviously nonsense.

 

[confutatis]

Can you tell me what it feels like when you masturbate?

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

 

[BoulderHead]

I didn't profess ignorance of the utility,…

This is absolutely an untrue statement. I do not know how you expect to be believed on this matter in consideration of the following exchange that took place between us;

Originally Posted by BoulderHead;
What would be the point assigning a name when clearly whatever name she chose to give it would neither enrich her own understanding or have meaning to anyone else?

Origianally Posted by Confutatis;
How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.

Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.


I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Of course I can tell you how it feels! What's your point?

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can...or any other feeling, if that particular example makes you uncomfortable.

 

[confutatis]

Then proceed to describe the feeling, if you can

Honestly, why do this? Are you trying to say I can't describe it? Of course I can, all I have to do is write some words. Do I have to actually write the words to prove you that I can write them? It sounds too childish to me.

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

 

[confutatis]

Looking at the meat of the matter I ask “what would be the point…” to which you reply with “How should I know?” I would suggest that if you don’t see any point to the naming that you are equally unable to see any utility.

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing. It doesn't mean I can't think of possible reasons why someone would do it. It's as if you ask me, "why is that man running?", I would just as well reply, "how should I know?". It could be because he's late for an appointment; it could be because he's trying to lose weight, it could be because he is trying to catch a bus... it could be a million things!

I’ll get around to the rest of your post by and by, because it misses the mark too, but thought this particular matter needed to be set straight immediately if we are to have any meaningful debate.

If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation.

 

[BoulderHead]

I hate to engage in those "what you said there doesn't fit with the rest of your argument" kind of debate, but I'll give you a chance.

Nice try, but that is not what I’m attempting to do at all. I was merely pointing out the falsity of your statement.

The reason I said "how should I know?" was simply because I have no idea why you would give a particular name to a particular thing…

Clever attempt at misdirection, Confutatis, but it doesn’t wash. My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.

If it's going to be about literary criticism, please spare yourself the trouble. For now I'm busy writing an essay on the ineffability of the experience of masturbation

I’m am left doubting your sincerity.

 

[confutatis]

My question wasn’t about assigning a particular name but, rather, why bother assigning a name at all.

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[BoulderHead]

"Why bother" is a pointless question. If you accept the fact that anything you think about can be given a name, then I can tell you what I think is relevant about it. If you keep insisting that fact is irrelevant, then we have nothing to discuss.

This is an even less clever attempt to avoid directly addressing my complaint than your last misdirection was. You see, I was in the first place only inquiring into the relevance of assigning a name to something which even you yourself acknowledged might not be understandable by another living soul. I have never denied or attempted to deny, as your comment might lead to believe, that a name could be applied. I have merely asked you time and time and time again to provide a reason for doing so. Now here you are, finally, offering to show the relevance as if it had never been asked of you, and the offer even comes coupled with the notion that we may have nothing left to discuss. Astounding !
The part about my first having to agree with you before you'll expain yourself I'll try to ignore. Also, I read again my comment about not being able to name that feeling I had when listening to that song. This was a poor choice of words and may have given the wrong impression. What I should have said was that I didn't know how to express it verbally. Obviously I could assign an arbitrary name but never saw the need to do so as it would neither help my understanding or enable me to convey to another what is in my mind. So, I appologize for my poor terminology with respect to that as certainly I did not express myself as properly as I should have.

So, I am now going to simply note you have been evasive and unwilling to accept responsibility for your own spoken words, while at the same time hoping this behavior will cease.

Now, let’s get down to the brass tacks, beginning with your first post;

I think a better way to approach the issue of thought vs. language is to ask instead, "is it possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language"?

The problem I have with this is twofold; in the first instance it sheds scant light on whether people who speak different languages actually think differently (remind me to reread the post by Nichomacus and apply the contents therein to my own self, btw). Secondly, and to address what this thread has digressed into, being able to assign a name to something has no bearing whatsoever on the proposition that people may be able to perform a thinking process without the use of language. It has already been stated that thinking about certain nameless things has been done, hence the irrelevance. In short, so far as I can determine, you offer nothing but a Red Herring for consumption.

…And to that question I think the answer is clearly "no".

Think whatever you want, I merely note that support was not offered for this assertion.

…And that makes thought perfectly isomorphic with language - not the same thing, but exhibiting the same fundamental properties.

Here, I view the use of the word “perfect” as hyperbole. Langauge may perform its duty by expressing conceptions in either a single word or string(s) of words but the word(s) can, and quite often do, convey a different meaning from person to person.

Finally, if you take a good hard look at the bold text you may at last come to understand what my questioning you has been about. Hope that helps.

[edit]
For grammer and additional comments in red.

 

[BoulderHead]

Confutatis,
I’ve been rereading this thread over and this is what I’m seeing;

In post #24, you make the statement you do not believe it is possible to think about something that cannot be communicated with language.

In post #25, Evo responds saying language is imperfect in accurately describing what we would wish to communicate.

In post #27, you respond to Evo saying “That does not mean you can't arbitrarily assign words to anything you think about. Whether other people can understand the meaning of the words you use is beside the point.”

Do you see the problem?
What you have said can be meaningful if there is some reason for saying it, otherwise there is no point. You might just as well be stating that it is possible to squint one eye while scratching your head. Now, since your statement claims the ability of others to understand these arbitrarily assigned words as being “beside the point” then it is only reasonable to conclude that communicating to others isn’t a consideration. Ergo; if communicating to others is beside the point, the point becomes unclear. This is why;

In post #28, I ask you to explain the point in undertaking such an exercise.

In post #33, you respond saying “How should I know? All I said is that a name can be given; whether it makes sense to do it or not is beside the point.”

Now, what kind of response is that?
It begins to look, at this point in the conversation, as if there was no reason behind post #27. I suppose I could just squint one eye and scratch my head since, after all, it is possible to do so.

In post #34, I ask again for you to address the issue.

In post #36, you deny having said what you said in post #33 stating “I didn't profess ignorance of the utility”.

In post #42, well, that was simply ridiculous and unhelpful.

In post #43, I’m informed my question is pointless. Interestingly, you also claim to hold something deemed relevant to my questioning, but I don’t get to hear what it is until I agree with you.

I’m going to close this post by suggesting you heed your own advise given to DD;

Stop beating around the bush and go straight to the argument; supposedly we're smart enough to do that without engaging in childish games.

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears.

 

[confutatis]

Now, if you can do anything to clear this matter up consider me all ears.

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm sorry but, as I said, I don't engage in those "you said this, you said that, nah nah nah nah nah nah..." kinds of discussions. I think it's too low.

Have fun

You act like a poorly mannered child. I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered. You merely respond with insulting comments.

Grow up, little child !

[edit]
What a silly excuse to avoid a perfectly reasonable question !

 

[confutatis]

I have presented my question to you several times in an honest attempt to have it answered.

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.

Hope you don't take it personally.

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but these forums are filled with people from all walks of life. In a single thread you may get sexagenarian PhDs having arguments with adolescents who barely finished high-school, without realizing their difficulties in communication result from their vastly different education and life experience. It's a truly bad thing about the internet that one can hide one's lack of qualification behind anonymity.

No, it’s not a bad thing if one is committed to taking time to explain their position (isn’t that what communicating is all about). Anyway, I don’t think the Internet is hiding anything...

I do not think you are qualified to engage in this debate at a level I can enjoy. I won't elaborate on my argument for you because to me clearly it would be a waste of time; it would add as much to my enjoyment of this discussion as writing a dissertation on the pleasures of sexual self-gratification. So I won't do either.

With all due respect, not a single word you have said addresses the merit of my question. This is a question which you have repeatedly been asked to clarify upon yet you have danced about and not done so. You even struck the deal that if I first agreed that anything could be assigned a name you would show the relevance. If you had taken the time to actually read what I have posted in red lettering you would see that I have no difficulty in conceding this, yet still you choose to dance away. You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly. There is no other reason than your ego getting in the way. Since getting you to support your own postings meets with nothing of substance, I am content to let the readers judge the fairness of my criticisms for themselves.

Hope you don't take it personally.

Not at all, I believe I understand your position completely.

 

[confutatis]

You are simply ducking out now because you are either unable to support what you have said and/or are unwilling to admit what you said didn’t make sense or should have been worded more clearly.

I am not unwilling to admit what I said should have been worded more clearly, but when I tried to reword it you said I was misdirecting your attention. I went to some trouble to explain what I meant by "how should I know", and what do I get from you? Not a "ah, now I understand it", but mindless criticism.

You talk too much and you say little of any substance. Put your money where your mouth is and show me you are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on a difficult philosophical topic. I will try and explain my position, you have to try and convince the readers of this forum that you can do better than pointing fingers at stuff you don't like.

I said everything you can think about can be given a name. You don't seem to disagree with that; in fact I can't even think why someone could possibly disagree with such an obvious fact. Your complaint is that it's often pointless to do so. I will adress that complaint now.

Financially speaking, everything you own, all your assets and personal belongings, can be converted into soya beans. If you own a car, your car is worth a certain amount of soya beans. Your clothes, your computer, your sunglasses, can be sold, and you can purchase soya beans with the proceeds. You don't object to that idea, right? You probably would say, "why in the world would anyone sell everything they own to buy soya beans". But I tried to tell you several times that the question is not relevant to what can be said once we agree on the convertibility between assets and soya beans - or between ideas and words.

The fact that everything you own amounts to a big pile of soya beans has an important consequence. Market imperfections aside, it means a big pile of soya beans can be converted into stuff that is far more useful to you than useless beans. If you are an investor, you can buy and sell soya beans, make a profit, turn that profit into stuff you need, without ever swallowing a soya bean, or even touching it. If an investor in commodities were to follow your line of thinking, he would never trade soya beans, for he has no use for them. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problem with your position.

When it comes to language, it is extremely important to know that, if you can express any idea in words, then the truths you find as a result of manipulating words according to the valid rules of the language will also be true ideas. For instance, if it is true that A is greater than B, and it is true that B is greater than C, then it's also true that A is greater than C, regardless of what A, B, and C refer to. But that is not the most relevant aspect.

The really meaningful point about ideas being exchangeable with words is something a lot of people ignore, for they do not understand it: a statement that violates the rules of language cannot possibly correspond to a true idea. In terms of soya trade, that is equivalent to the fact that a piece of paper giving ownership to a ton of soya can't possibly be worth more or less than an actual ton of soya.

A truckful of soya beans is worth exactly the same as a piece of paper giving ownership to a truckful of soya beans; anyone making claims to the contrary is lying, probably with the purpose of taking advantage from people who do not understand the market as well as they do. And so it is with ideas: the world is filled with people claiming that their linguistically invalid statements stand for valid ideas nonetheless. A little knowledge of the relationship between language and ideas clearly shows that to be impossible.

You may still find that irrelevant. But at least I gave you what you have been asking for. Let's see what you do with it.