(Author’s note: this piece was originally prepared as an essay for a philosophical conference, and so was so tailored to be as general as possible. The application to men’s rights should be obvious and I encourage readers to comment on various points raised in the essay as they apply specifically to men’s rights. There should be plenty of points of departure.)
1. Introduction
The objective of philosophy, in the broadest and most fundamental sense, is concerned with thinking. But this begs the obvious question – what is thinking? One professor at the University of Utah asked his students this simple question with varying results:
I recently asked some college honor students to define thinking. After pondering the question, a student majoring in sociology said, “It consists of reflecting on some idea or insight and exploring its logical connections and implications for making sense out of something.†In response to the same question, an English major responded: “It’s the ability to write a convincing argument in support of a particular point of view.†According to a premedical student majoring in biology, “Thinking is the ability to use information for analyzing data in order to solve some problem.†A philosophy major said without hesitation, “It’s a critical openness to new ideas as one explores their logical foundations.†And a student whose major is undecided said “It’s what I’m trying to do in response to your darn question.” (Geersteen, 2003)
It seems that a precise definition eludes consensus; indeed, as American writer and television producer J. Michael Straczynski once famously remarked, “The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by our facility with language” (Lewis, 2009). The purpose of this essay is to more closely examine the link between language and thought, and put forth the foundation for an argument that asserts that language is, more or less, thought, as well as consider the implications of that idea.
2. Evolution of Language
In his work, Evolutionary Biology of Language, Martin A. Nowak goes to great lengths to establish a logical model that tracks the way in which a simple system of symbols could have evolved into modern language. His model involves quite a bit of advanced logic and mathematical concepts (which are beyond the scope of this essay), but the basic idea is that language evolved from a rigid system of limited symbols whereby one object had one symbol to the more modern system which allows for (perhaps) unlimited expression of ideas and events. Another expert who has also tracked the evolution of language remarks on the character of modern language systems: “Present-day human languages can be readily deployed to talk about events, objects, people and places far removed in space and time from the act of speaking, and the signs used to talk about such displaced referents have no detectable physical similarity to the referents themselves†(Urban, 2002).
Nowak (2000) incorporates arguments about evolution in his analysis of language: “Evolution relies on the transfer of information from one generation to the next. For billions of years this process was limited to the transfer of genetic information. Language facilitates the transfer of non-genetic information and thus leads to a new mode of evolution.” Essentially, he asserts that language has evolutionary advantages, and thus more effective (or “fitâ€) systems of languages would be the ones that get passed down from our ancestors, while less “fit†systems would become extinct. How do systems become more or less fit? It has to do with how many symbols and how many definitions there are in a system:
In other words, adding the possibility of describing more and more objects (or concepts) to the repertoire of a language cannot increase the maximum amount of information transfer beyond a certain limit. If, in addition, we assume that objects have different values, then we find that the maximum fitness is usually achieved by limiting the repertoire of the language to a small number of objects. Increasing the repertoire of the language can reduce fitness. Hence natural selection will prefer communication systems with limited repertoires.
He goes on to assert that “successful communication increases the survival probability or performance during life history and hence enhances the expected number of offspring. Thus, language is of adaptive value and contributes to biological fitness.”
If languages which retain fewer concepts (“reduced repertoiresâ€) have increased biological fitness and evolutionary advantage, how did modern language come to be so complex and accommodate so much ambiguity and confusion? Nowak (2000) offers his thoughts in his conclusion (emphasis my own):
Efficient and unambiguous communication together with easy learnability of the language is rewarded in terms of pay-off and fitness. While we think that these are absolutely fundamental and necessary assumptions for much of language evolution, we also note the seemingly unnecessary complexity of current languages. Certainly, systems designed by evolution are often not optimized from an engineering perspective. Moreover, it seems likely that at times evolutionary forces were at work to make things more ambiguous and harder to learn, such that only a few selected listeners could understand the message. If a good language performance enhances the reputation of the group, we can also imagine an arms race towards increased and unnecessary complexity. Such a process can drive the numbers of words and rules beyond what would be best for efficient information exchange. This should be the subject of papers to come. (Nowak, 2000)
Here Nowak admits to one of the most fundamental problems with language – the way in which it can be ideologized. Before I tackle that idea, which deals with large social systems, let us first examine more mundane dangers associated with misunderstandings of language.
3. Language Assumptions
“Everyone who reads this paper knows of the order of 50,000 words of his primary language. These words are stored in the ‘mental lexicon’ together with one or several meanings, and some information about how they relate to other words and how they fit into sentences” (Nowak, 2000). Language is a fundamental fact of human existence, but it is also one that is taken for granted. As the quote above illustrates, we all have a sort of mental dictionary we tote around, and during communication, it is all too natural to assume that the definition we have in mind for a word we use when we are speaking matches the definition that our listener has in mind for the same word. Often times, conflicts that arise as a result of this are minimal, but other times they can have important consequences. Imagine a scenario where a friendly girl tosses around the phrase “I love you†in the most trivial of ways, utilizing the phrase as a sort of goodbye, which seems so common these days. (Her interpretation of the word love is casual and can be supported by more than one of the many definitions found in any number of dictionaries – the dictionary.com website has no less than 14 definitions for love.) In a communication moment with someone who thinks of the word love as having more gravitas, she is bound to create a miscommunication – the person to whom she is speaking will receive an entirely different message than the one she intends. This could result in disappointment for her listener, such as in the case of her listener being a man who was infatuated with her. Twist the scenario a bit, and imagine she did mean the more serious interpretation of love, whereas her male listener assumed she meant a more casual one, and now she is prone to feel the negative impacts of communication loss.
Recall Nowak’s (2000) idea of language fitness, first visited above: “…The fitness contribution of a language can be formulated as the probability that two individuals know the correct word for a given event summed over all events and weighted with the rate of occurrence of these events.” Essentially, a language is more “fit†if the chances of the speaker and listener having the same definition for a word (love in the previous example) are high. It follows that the higher the number of disparate definitions for the same word there are in a given language, the less fit that language becomes. English seems especially rife with words that have numerous and disparate meanings, and it is no exaggeration to say that a 15-page paper could be written on this subject alone. I implore you to consider the use of words such as “socialist,†“communist,†“harassment,†“equality,†“family values,†“oppression,†or nearly any other politically charged word in the public sphere, with the idea that the person speaking the word could be talking about something entirely different from the person listening to the word, even though they are both considering the same word. Since this essay is concerned only with impelling contemplation, the previous analyses should suffice as a primer on this particular point.
However, definitions of words are not the only assumptions we make regarding language. The literature establishes that the average person is both ignorant and arrogant when it comes to language, a rather dangerous combination:
In matters of language history, structure, function, and standardization, the average individual is, for the most part, simultaneously uninformed and highly opinionated. When asked directly about language use, most people will draw a very solid basic distinction of ‘standard’ (proper, correct) English vs. everything else. (Lippi-Green, 1994)
That we posit the existence of something called language can itself be considered an assumption, which, furthermore, has an impact on how human societies are organized:
Beliefs about what is or is not a real language, and underlying these beliefs, the notion that there are distinctly identifiable languages that can be isolated, named, and counted, enter into strategies of social domination. Such beliefs…have contributed to profound decisions about, for example, the civility or even the humanity of subjects of colonial domination. They also qualify or disqualify speech varieties from certain institutional uses and their speakers from access to domains of privilege. (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994)
More examples of how language has a tangible impact on our lives will be discussed later. We hold other assumptions about language that are of paramount philosophical importance. Indeed, how we think about language may impact perceptions as fundamental as how we define ourselves: “Language socialization studies have demonstrated connections among folk theories of language acquisition, linguistic practices, and key cultural ideas about personhood” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). Moreover, thoughts regarding language (especially in the Western nations, like the United States) underpin assumptions regarding the nature of reality: “In the vernacular belief system of Western culture, language standards are not recognized as human artifacts, but are naturalized by metaphors such as that of the free market” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). This stands in stark contrast to a more reasoned and self-examined perspective, informed by a more comprehensive understanding of language, its functions, and its evolution:
Deconstructive rhetorical analysis is based on the premise that all claims to transcendent truths are radically undercut by the fact that they are made within a given language and culture which impose limits on the thought and perception of individuals making the claim. We do not have unmediated access to a truth; rather, our view of the world is a function of a set of culturally constructed assumptions which shape our perception of the truth…Deconstructive critics also assert, though, that rhetoric is always open to multiple interpretations which are themselves a function of the interpreters’ own beliefs and values. Any deconstructive reading is offered as one among many possible interpretations.” (Blanton, McLaughlin, & Moorman, 1994)
A key point here is that not only is language ineffective for establishing perfectly objective observations of reality form the perspective of the speaker, it also depends upon the interpretations of the listener. Thus, miscommunication can result either from poorly phrased speaking or from various deficiencies in the listener. For example, while a speaker’s poor accent can increase the odds of communication loss, a listener’s desire to understand the speaker is perhaps even more important:
…Accent…is most likely to pose a barrier to effective communication when two elements are lacking. The first is a basic level is communicative competence on the part of the speaker…. The second element, even more important but far more difficult to assess, is the listener’s good will. Without the goodwill, the speaker’s…degree of communicative competence is irrelevant. Prejudiced listeners cannot hear what a person has to say, because accent, as a mirror of social identity and a litmus test for exclusion, is more important.” (Lippi-Green, 1994)
The assumptions of language we take for granted can be exploited through the imposition of language ideologies.
4. Language Ideologies
The phrase “language ideology†is defined by different authors in different ways, but for the purpose of this essay I provide the following: “The definition [of language ideology] used here is: a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed from above, and which takes as its model the written language. The most salient feature is the goal of suppression of variation of all kinds” (Lippi-Green, 1994). In other words, a language ideology seeks to impose a standard of language upon as many potential speakers as possible (for example, within a nation as in a national language, though certain social groups may exclude others on the basis of ‘official’ languages).
Considering that language can be crucial to how one defines one’s place in the world (as examined in the article Language and Borders), such totalitarian impositions have observable consequences:
The phrase “language and borders” suggests that language differences signify categories of person defined by ethnic or national origin and that these categories are opposed to each other. People act in ways that are taken as “having” a language, which is equated to “belonging” to an origin group. Borders emerge in specific contexts as a metonymy of person, language, and origin category. This metonymy can be fleeting or quite rigid and in varying degrees politicized. (Urciuoli, 1995)
Stated more simply, the language a person speaks comes to fully define that person in the perception of others. Ideas like ethnicity and nationality could be deconstructed as nothing more than a difference in language. Urciuoli (1995) goes on further to say, “What does exist, in any society, is the fact of linguistic variation from which people deploy language forms in acts of identity. From such acts, people’s sense of community, group, and language emerge in specific places and times.” This need not be interpreted only with regards to nations – think also of subcultures, such as internet gaming communities, the military, or any other culture which has a language unto itself.
Due to length considerations, this essay cannot fully examine the ways in which various parts of language have important implications. The literature points out that accents play a key role in the way a listener perceives a speaker: “…Prosidics and accents…are key in the perception of ethnic and race boundaries that thread their way through ordinary situations and that have real-world consequences for people’s social options” (Urciuoli, 1995). Additionally, notions regarding systems of writing and literacy are fueled by cultural factors: “Anthropological studies of literacy…recognized belatedly that it is not an autonomous, neutral technology, but rather is culturally organized, ideologically grounded, and historically contingent, shaped by political, social, and economic forces” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). I would now like to take the time to examine the counterargument that language is not the only way to think, that surely there must be some other way of thinking.
5. Alternative Models of Thinking
The most common split in cognition theories is that humans are capable of thinking verbally and mathematically, and that these two modes of thinking are distinct from each other. Such a worldview is evident in the organization of the SAT exam, for example, which is split between math and verbal components. Nowak (2000) seems to hint that language is not the only mode of thinking when he writes, “Our language performance relies on precisely coordinated interactions of various parts of our neural and other anatomy, and we are amazingly good at it. We can all speak without thinking. In contrast, we cannot perform basic mathematic operations without concentration.”
Let us examine mathematical thinking more closely. At first glance, the literature is convincing in establishing mathematical thinking as distinct from thinking through language:
Most schools assume that teaching mathematics compulsorily and over a number of years they are providing the conditions through which pupils will develop their mathematical thinking. This assumption, usually unchallenged, rests on a view of mathematics as a logically developed discipline, together with the expectation that the logic will spill over and be absorbed by the pupils into all aspects of their lives as they pursue a study of the content of mathematics, for example, in learning number, geometry, trigonometry, or algebra. Experience, however, tells a very different story…Certainly an inordinate amount of time in schools is spent teaching mathematical content and techniques while the process, the means through which mathematics is derived, receives little attention….Exploring process is not very profitable when teachers do not understand the kinds of thinking from which process springs. (Burton, 1984)
In summary, mathematical thinking is a different process for thinking, and one assumes it would be distinct in nature from thinking through language. However, once the literature is read more deeply, apparent distinctions evaporate (emphasis the author’s own): “The process is initiated by encountering an element with enough surprise or curiosity to impel exploration of it by manipulating… Although the sense of what is happening is vague, further manipulating is required until the sense can be expressed is an articulation†(Burton, 1984). Expressing an articulation? Isn’t that the precise point of language? Yet wait, there’s more (emphasis my own):
Pupils need tools to help them structure their responses so that they can build their reflective powers. Further, they need encouragement to capture their feelings at the moment of expression. Consequently, students of all ages have been encouraged to develop the use of particular words that reflect their responses as they tackle questions…The key to recognizing and using mathematical thinking lies in creating an atmosphere that builds confidence to question, challenge, and reflect. (Burton, 1984)
I assert that mathematics is just another type of language which is also based on symbols (generally, numbers instead of words), and that, in fact, all human thinking is symbolic in nature. There is a school of thought which asserts truth through symbolic logic, and it is worth examining at this juncture.
6. Symbolic Logic
What is symbolic logic? Aside from a rule system that has useful applications in computer programing and math, for instance, I assert it is nothing more than another language. In any event, one proponent describes it as follows (emphasis my own):
…Symbolic logic, is, in its broadest sense, a new science which studies through use of efficient symbols the nature and properties of all nonnumerical relations, seeking precise meanings and necessary conclusions. As an applied science, it holds immense promise. For example, it may give us an unambiguous language for political, economic, and social fields, which will conveniently reflect the structure of these fields and make discussion and analysis easy. (Berkeley, 1942)
Symbolic logic seeks “precise meanings†and supplies us an “unambiguous language…†It should be clear at this point that it is nothing more than another language (and thus owes no higher claim to The Truth than any other language), but, the following quote about one of symbolic language’s chief powers may help shed some more light on the situation (emphasis my own): “We observe first that symbolic logic can define certain ideas which neither mathematics nor the dictionary can possibly define; for example, symbolic logic can define number.” (Berkeley, 1942) There again, symbolic logic is concerned with defining things (and it is even said later in the article that symbolic language competes with dictionaries); how can one not conclude it is just another language?
For those unfamiliar, symbolic language did indeed take off as a philosophical idea and has had many practical and important impacts. However, as mentioned before, it is no more a path to conceptualizing The Truth or reality as any other path. It is still a language, though a refined one, and still subject to the pitfalls of language (emphasis author’s own):
As we noted earlier, no language, as the product of a given culture and history, can claim to have unmediated access to the real. Making such a simple assertion implies a kind of cultural arrogance, forgetful as it is of the multiplicity of languages and of the linguistic reality that each provides a variety of ways to structure the real. Language is a mediational tool which enables the construction of cultural reality. Such terms as real, authentic, and genuine, especially when they are repeated without much critical self-awareness, give the impression that successful language use provides access to The Truth itself.” (Blanton, McLaughlin, & Moorman, 1994)
Symbolic logic was not without critics, however.
One author wrote a multifaceted rebuttal based on logical arguments, though a full treatment of those arguments is beyond the scope of this essay. Of more relevance is the following analysis, which rejects the idea that the definitions of things should be fixed, or, in other words, that language ideologies should be enforced (emphasis author’s own):
But Formal Logic has perversely chosen to build on the fiction that the meaning of terms is (or ought to be) fixed, and to talk about propositions rather than judgments. So the proposition becomes a helpless formula, totally incapable of reproducing the features of living thought. It has acquired its meanings from past uses; but these do not protect it against ‘willful modifications’ at the hands of masters of language like Humpty Dumpty, who make words mean what they please…Is not the whole history of philosophy one long illustration of philosophic audacity in manipulating language, and does not experience show that philosophers frequently get away with their arbitrary modifications of ‘the‘ meaning of words and ‘propositions?’ I can not admit, therefore, that…symbolic logic [is] in any way relevant to the procedures of our actual thinking. (Schiller, 1932)
An important implication of this argument is that words/ideas/what-have-you are defined by past uses, but this provides no protection from those who would manipulate definitions for their own advancement. Thus the Jew in Nazi Germany, for instance, can suddenly become the scapegoat for an entire nation’s woes. There are many examples of this but unfortunately little room for a detailed analysis; I am sure the reader can think of his or her own examples of how words have been manipulated to mean entirely different things, for good and for ill. The take away point from this section is that a more accurate conceptualization of human thinking is thus: all human thinking is symbolic – and language can be thought of as nothing more than a system of symbols created for the purposes of communication. Therefore, symbolic logic is ‘just’ another language, like English or mathematics.
7. Practical, or Less Abstract Implications
So far, many of the examples mentioned in this paper have been of an abstract nature. Here, I hope to provide a brief look at some real-world, practical implications to the understanding of language I have outlined above. Geersteen (2003) outlines why it is important to think more clearly:
What makes higher-level thinking so important? To begin with, we live in a world of unprecedented change and expansion in information. New information continues to multiply as old information becomes obsolete…Constant and accelerating shifts in information mean that all members of society need greater skill in assessing and evaluating knowledge.
An understanding of language ideologies may yield answers to significant and challenging contemporary problems, including (but certainly not limited to) those outlined in the quote below:
Many populations around the world, in multifarious ways, posit fundamental linkages among such apparently diverse cultural categories as language, spelling, grammar, nation, gender, simplicity, intentionality, authenticity, knowledge, development, power, and tradition. But our professional attention has only begun to turn to understanding when and how those links are forged – whether by participants or their expert analysts – and what their consequences might be for linguistic and social life. A wealth of public problems hinge on language ideology. Examples from the headlines of United States newspapers include bilingual policy and the official English movement; questions about free speech and harassment; the meaning of multiculturalism in schools and texts; the exclusion of jurors who might rely on their own native-speaker understanding of non-English testimony; and the question of journalists’ responsibilities and the truthful representation of direct speech. Coming to grips with such public issues means coming to grips with the nature and working of language ideology. (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994)
Indeed, an understanding of language ideologies may be critical to achieving true intellectual freedom. As was quoted in Nowak (2000)’s work above, it is not unfeasible to imagine that certain people/groups/interests have a vested interest in an “arms race†towards ever increasing complexity and ambiguity. As his work demonstrates, this is more than just a social justice issue – if the fitness of our language continues to deteriorate and we can no longer efficiently and effectively communicate with one another, we will be at an evolutionary disadvantage. How much danger we are in is up for debate, but it certainly warrants consideration.
We should be wary of ideological interpretations of language: “Important sociolinguistic changes can be set off by ideological interpretation of language use, although because they derive only from a larger social dialectic, such changes are likely to take an unintended direction, as in the historical case of the second person pronoun shift in English.” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994)
One example I would point out would be the “politically correct†movement, which seeks to define what is and is not acceptable for conversation and even intellectual debate. Such ideas are dangerous because they limit the amount of discourse in society and in the academy, and, further, can allow for certain ideologies to propagate unopposed and without critical evaluation. The whole idea of freedom of speech, after all, is to protect the ideas that we do not like to hear; the ideas that we enjoy hearing need no protection, and yet, if we do not listen to ideas we do not like, we may not be able to see the ways that the ideas we do like potentially poison our thinking (and in turn, our society and world).
Figurative speech is often employed for ideological purposes. This essay cannot hope to examine every use of figurative speech possible, but will provide one example related to the “whole language†movement in education to illustrate the point (emphasis author’s own):
We mean the term rhetoric to refer to the effort to persuade or argue forcefully for a position. More specifically, following a tradition that goes back to antiquity, we use it to refer to…figures of speech….An example…is the use of the word ownership to describe the relationship that the movement wants to foster between student writers and the texts they produce. In this context the word ownership is being used figuratively. It does not refer literally to an act of economic possession; rather, it uses that act as an analogy for the idea that writers can have control over and feel pride in what they write. The use of the word ownership in this metaphorical or figurative way serves as a rallying cry for teachers. The intense control that the word implies is a goal that teachers can strive for, a value that they can share. Thus the use of this figure attempts to persuade the uninitiated and to produce group solidarity. It serves the rhetoric of the movement. (Blanton, McLaughlin, & Moorman, 1994)
Figurative language can be evaluated critically to reveal the deepest assumptions of its users, however:
We argue, though, that the figurative language of a text does more than persuade. Read critically, it also reveals the deepest assumptions that underlie the text’s arguments. All arguments proceed from a set of assumptions held by the persons making the arguments. These assumptions are what can be taken for granted, the unquestioned ‘truths’ that underlie the explicit claims evident in the text. (Blanton, McLaughlin, & Moorman, 1994)
A wise philosophy professor I had the good fortune of studying under once told our class that philosophy was the business of questioning assumptions. If that is the case, we should always be on the lookout for figurative language, and seek to evaluate the assumptions that lie lurking below powerful rhetorical language.
8. Conclusion
We are left then with the simple-seeming question posed at the beginning of this paper: what is thinking, and what is the proper way to go about thinking? The answer is likewise simple: thinking and the proper way to go about are entirely up to the thinker to define. Some may deride this idea as infantile and naive; but I believe a full appreciation of the implications of this idea reveal it to be as liberating a philosophy as can be conceived – it permits true freedom of thought. As Kierkegaard once remarked: “The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find an idea for which I can live and die.†The extent to which we can conceptualize of thinking as correct applies only so far as a thinker can effectively communicate with another through whichever language facilitates the most clarity between the two – be it English, algebra, symbolic logic, or some soon-to-be invented language. Cognizance of the communication medium and respect for differing abilities among speakers/listeners to comprehend messages encoded in that medium are paramount to understanding and commonality. Indeed, “A…crucial concept is that the burden of communication is shared, on every level, by both participants…” (Lippi-Green, 1994). Perhaps, one day, humans will evolve an entirely new system to replace symbolic thinking/language, but until that day we are compelled to live with what we have. A rigorous review and critical evaluation of the mediums we choose to communicate in, and all the associated implications, seems likely to reduce unnecessary conflict and to, dare I say, promote peace.
Works Cited
Geersteen, HR. (2003). Rethinking thinking about higher-level thinking. Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 1-19.
Lewis, JJ. (2009). Wisdom quotes. Retrieved from http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_wisdom.html
Urban, G. (2002). Metasignaling and language origins. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 233-246.
Nowak, MA. (2000). Evolutionary biology of language. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 355(1403), 1615-1622.
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163-198.
Woolard, KA., & Schieffelin, BB. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82.
Blanton, W., McLaughlin, T., & Moorman, G. (1994). The Rhetoric of whole language. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 308-329.
Urciuoli, B. (1995). Language and borders. Annual Review of Anthropolgy, 24, 525-546.
Burton, L. (1984). Mathematical thinking: the struggle for meaning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(1), 35-49.
Berkeley, EC. (1942). Conditions affecting the application of symbolic logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7(4), 160-168.
Schiller, FCS. (1932). The Principles of symbolic logic. The Journal of Philosophy, 29(20), 550-552.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Here are my two cents on this subject.
In line with the remark about ‘thinking and the proper way to go about are entirely up to the thinker to define’ I would like to define thinking as the whole of human neural activity and language as one of the possible results of this ongoing communication process as what we subjectively perceive to represent the states of this process in a symbolic, and normally perceived as objective, way. In other words, we perceive it as an accurate description of reality. In my view, language is both an internal and an external way to communicate, along with other ways to communicate internally and externally. Evolutionary IMHO, neuronal activity has only one ‘reason’ or ‘purpose’, that is : to communicate, as a specialized function of cells that are part of collections of other specialized cells. Defining any neuronal activity as thinking would make the term thinking almost meaningless, it would be without ‘content’, so I would like to restrict the term thinking to human neural activity as long as the perception of this process can be communicated externally to other humans in a interactive way, and thereby used to try to synchronize at least part of the perceived content of my internal communication processes. To restrict thinking entirely to a personal subjective description of an internal communication process would make it almost useless as symbol of communication between humans. Placing the term thinking in a logical exclusive frame, either it is something objective and externally measurable or it is something internally subjective and not measurable, has been tried by different philosophers over time without any success at all. Logical exclusive frames may be attractive, but they probably solve only logical problems, and logic is a way of thinking, a possibility amongst others of our neural activity. My guess is that thinking is a process rather than a fixed state or sets of states and this makes it unsuitable for description in words, which are used to communicate states or fixed forms. So, for me thinking is both something internally subjective and something externally observable and there is some relation between the two, although I have only a vague idea about the relation.
Music, for instance, has certain communication possibilities, at least for me. And from my own experience, rational thinking whereby I could use words in order to try to fixate part of my thinking, will hamper my musical communication in a almost destructive way. As soon as I start to rationalize internally about my making of music, the essence of making music as an expression of my internal communication is gone. And this applies to live performances as well. Also, I’m not able in any way to communicate music in words. I’m only able to (partly) communicate music with music. At least that is the illusion I live with, if only because of the reactions of the audience. Music seems to be another way of ‘thinking’.
Also, symbols, whether it are words or music, are the intermediate results of our thinking, our internal communication process. They can be part of the ongoing process, especially if they come from an ‘external’ source. They will never replace the ongoing internal process, although time and again people have tried to do this, especially by trying to define the internal communication process of others that words should represent. And sometimes with remarkable success. Millions have lived, but also millions have died in this endeavor. In most cases, it is a power game, it communicates what others are supposed to think and do. In my country, The Netherlands, it has been the cause of a civil war in the first half of the seventeenth century. Words, language, are powerful tools that allow us to coordinate our activities. But the other side of the coin is that restriction of the internal ‘meaning’ of words, or in the amount of used words is both futile since humans are not computers or robots and, depending on the circumstances, might be rather dangerous. Language is an always evolving, never perfect attempt to communicate what goes on inside us. Especially today’s political correctness movement might prove to be rather destructive over time. It is appealing since it brings the warm illusion of belonging to other groups that share the same basic ideas about how the world should be. However, we are in no position to declare to have achieved the perfect society, no matter how hard we would wish it to be true. We still need a lot of creative, and thus not always politically correct, thinking. And with that, changing meanings of existing words and new words.
“Deconstructive rhetorical analysis is based on the premise that all claims to transcendent truths are radically undercut by the fact that they are made within a given language and culture which impose limits on the thought and perception of individuals making the claim. ”
Would science and math not be able to negate the above to a certain extent?
Qustion: Is visualization, seeing objects in 3D, even when simplified, considered Mathmatical thinking or Symbolic thinking?
Are numbers not just symbols for visual thought, which is a way to understand a physical reality? A mathmatician may just see the number two, but is that not just a symbol for two objects? Likewise is 1/2 not just a symbol for half an object? We need to know what the object is exactly to visualize two of it, or half of it? Can we not use visual shorthand?
Along this line of thinking, is language not just a symbol for a physical reality, even abstract realities can be visualized, abstractly at least.
Think along the lines like this, “Two” is a symbol for “2″ which is a symbol for a physical reality of two objects, even when those objects remain abstract? In this sense, all thought is visual thought of physical realities, allthough the vast majority of the time we use symbolic shorthand, as pure visualization is cognitively intensive and not practical?
This stream of conscience thought experiment has been brought to by the mind of Jabberwocky. I’d like to get into this more, but I’ve got work to do. I’ll be back later.
What about thinking about or processing smell, taste, touch, emotion,etc. We don’t have visual substitutes for that. How do we comprehend their physical reality? Way to get my mind going when I have work to do. Thanks.
Congratulations on writing the first genuinely intelligent piece that I have seen so far on the Spearhead.
An analogy that I like to use when trying to explain the importance of language (e.g. mastery of same) to those who have not taken the time or effort to master their primary language is this.
You are nowadays all familiar with images displayed on a computer screen, take a decent digital camera and photograph (Latin, to draw ith light) any image you like, let’s say you end up with a picture that is 1600 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high and in a pallete of 16 million possible unique colours. (approximately 24 bit colour)
In fact the chances are that if you open that digital picture in a photo editing application you will find that there are less than 100,000 unique colours used. This contrasts well with the cited 50,000 word lexicon of the average person.
Now you use the editing feature of the photo editing application to reduce the number of colours in the image to 16,000 (approximately 16 bit colour) and lo and behold we have lost information and subtlety.
Reduce the colour depth still further and we further degrade the image.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth for some nice examples of this.
In addition to this, especially at the lower bit depth colours, not all colours are equal, there is no “256 colour pallette” as such, where every shade of every colour is universal.
In this very text we have language equivalents of this, “color” vs “colour”, “colour” of course being the correct English way of spelling the word, “color” being American, and in fact these American spellings are old English spellings, British English has evolved away from these older spellings, American English has not.
There are also greater differences, “wrench”, “boot”, “fanny”, “fag”, “endorsement” etc. all have quite different meanings in the two languages. http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/
But deeper than this, there are cultural differences, “Liberty” does not mean the same thing to a Frenchman as it means to an American, for example as an Englishman I can always tell which side of the Atlantic someone hails from simply by looking at their replies to comments that I make, ostensibly we speak the same language, but we come from different cultures.
Even deeper than this, English itself is composed largely of stolen words from other languages, which gives rise to etymology, an interesting subject in itself (see “photography” passim) but as always something is lost and something else added in this importation.
Bullfighting ( Spanish style ) is a classic example, no Spaniard thinks symbolically “bull” + “fight”, it isn’t a fight or contest of any kind between bull and human, and so foreigners (“estangeros” literally “strangers”) simply don’t “get it” because we talk about bullfights.
Even saying “spanish” means something different to an American and a European, when I say it I mean Castellano, as spoken in Spain.
Three fun Spanish words.
Casa – House
Casado – Married (housed – the guys here will like this)
Casadoras – Handcuffs (the guys here will like this even more)
But the fact is you can only understand these words when living in Spain, speaking in Spanish, AND thinking in Spanish.
To do anything else is to go to Vietnam and try to work out how much everything is, price equivalent wise, in greenbacks.
The FACTS are, that the gulf in language between, for example, USA women and USA men, is at least as great as, if not greater than, the gulf in language between USA men and UK men.
So, for a USA man, trying to talk to a USA woman about, say, “Equality”, is in fact going to be a process more fraught with challenges and pitfalls than the same USA man trying to talk to a EU man about “Socialism”.
The process itself is doomed unless both parties, prior to any attempt at communication, first endeavour to apply Socrates three rules (do you know it to be true for a fact, is it speaking well of the subject, will it benefit me to hear it) and also to pay attention to the etymology and history.
There is a difference between being dismissive of someone because they have absolutely no intention of doing this (bigotry) and because they are genuinely unaware of this (ignorance), however, neither the bigoted nor the ignorant are able to see this very important difference.
@AFOR-
Sometimes I forget how smart you are. Always keep them guessing, right?
You have a good sense of smell, and find cooking a relaxing experience?
(Okay, now I’m just grasping at straws.)
Good to have some meaty and less polemic reading here, too. I was half suspecting to still come across the word “feminazi” somewhere…
Steven Pinker and George Lakoff (framing and metaphors) have written about these topics in the popular press as well. Regarding the example on confessing/stating your love: perhaps it’s better to assume everyone’s really a zombie without any mental states?
However, Sapir & Worf’s hythothesis might taking this “language is thought” thinking a bit too far. And is brain and thinking more symbolic or connectionist in nature, to borrow AI terms? Dunno.
I would quote Wittgenstein if I would dare. Thus ends my academic status signalling excercise for today.
I’m surprised the Durden didn’t cite, in this philosophy paper, the Philosopher, Aristotle. It seems to me a good chunk of his “Metaphysics,” at least the first book, deals with thought.
My knowledge of philosophy is limited but isn’t Plato’s theory of Forms about this.
How can you can cite a study of careless college undergrads mired in ignorance and ignore the masters who made the very field you study.
I disagree with the conclusion.
“Thinking” is the internal methodology
used to persuade people
you’re smarter than they are, and thus
deserving of even bigger
Federal education grants.
Publish or perish.
Like, who gives a fuck.
Nobody thinks anymore.
From aFOR:
I believe you are wrong in this case. The -our spelling is French. Wasn’t it Noah Webster who introduced the spelling reform that took out the u in such words?
English is not unique in this regard. Also, all languages have etymology, because all languages change. Furthermore, no one “steals” a word — it’s not as if a word “belongs” to one language and to that language only. And while much of our technical vocabulary is from Latin and Greek, the core that is in daily use is still recognizably Germanic.
see what
I mean
First off, thanks everyone who read and commented. I’ll try to get to your comments and address them throughout the day – I’m often busy as a result of duty and college, however, so, bear with me.
@ Ivo
That’s a mouthful, isn’t it! First off, why would we define thinking as any neural activity, when there is plenty of neural activity that we can measure that has nothing to do with thinking? Thinking has always been understood as something humans – more or less – have control over. Yes, sometimes we day dream, and yes, sometimes we have subconscious thoughts. However, how do we go about expressing these thoughts – to ourselves, or to others? Or making sense about them? In order to do that, it seems as though humans rely on language – be it your ‘native tongue’ or be it mathematics. And all languages are symbolic in nature. Thus, all thinking is language, insofar as we understand language to mean any system of symbols.
As you say, defining any neuronal activity as thinking IS fairly meaningless. Adding “human neuronal activity” doesn’t add much at all – because as I’ve pointed out, there’s plenty of brain activity that ISN’T thinking. The key that you get to is “as long as the perception of this process can be communicated externally” – and in order to do that, humans evolved languages, which are systems of symbols. Thus, thinking is language.
Unfortunately, it is hard for me to read the rest of your post as it isn’t spaced out by paragraphs and what not, and I’d like to give some attention to other posts as well.
@ Jabber
I submit that science and math are able to negate it to a certain extent not because they are not languages, but because they are (generally) very precise languages. 1 always means 1, for example. It isn’t context dependent, unlike certain words (love is a great example). 1 will never mean 3 or 5 or any other number, it will only mean 1. And all the other numbers are the same way. However, love can mean any of 14 different things depending upon context – English is not a precise language. There is less room for interpretation in mathematics and science because the languages are precise and the symbols used generally describe one thing and one thing only. (Interesting to note that math starts to get wonky once you start trying to deal with infinity – much the same way language is getting wonky now that it allows for infinite expression.)
@ AfOR
Thank you for the praise and the comment – I liked your analysis of colors. The essay was prepared on a deadline but there was an article about color perception and learning that I wish I had time to get to before the dead line. I think it is probably in line with what you were describing. I also like your bit about how US men communicating with US women poses challenges more or less equal in difficulty but distinct in character to US men communicating with UK men.
@ Mr. N
St. Thoms Aquinas fan, are we? He was the one to start calling Aristotle “The Philosopher.” I didn’t cite him because, for one, this paper was intended for a general audience in contemporary times. If I were to cite a philosopher, I would have gone to Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, whom vehemently disagreed with orthographies, evidenced by his “unwritten doctrine.” He argued that written language is not suitable for capturing “the truth,” and he may have been on to something there, if you conduct a close study of the way orthographies lock people into systems of thinking.
You admit your own ignorance and then accuse me of ignorance as well? Seems rather short-sighted, don’t you think? It is fine to disagree with my conclusion, but may I ask why?
I want to make a correction to my above comment – I did cite some philosophers. Two, in fact, in the “symbolic logic” section. I think this is a powerful and pertinent quote about philosophy (from the essay, in case you missed it, from Schiller’s piece):
When you think of a smell, when you remember a smell, what internal language are you using?
When I visualize a complex three dimensional object, what internal language am I using?
We are born with a language instinct, an actual part of the brain that processes language. When damaged, people can forget what objects are called, but they can still draw them. Two children growing up without a language to learn, will develop their own. (See twin speak and developmental isolation) Language is our evolutionary advantage, like flight, poison, armor, fangs, etc.
I would say that animals and people think in pictures, sounds, smells, and any sense perception first. Language is unique to humans and essentially shorthand symbolic interpretations of the above sensory perceptions. In this sense, animals have awareness, and think, but just not with language. (See Autism)
Fair enough. I think a better distinction for thinking then would be language-based thinking and artistic-based thinking (thinking in images as opposed to symbols). After all, you don’t need to speak to visualize, and, further, you can express your visualizations through art.
On second thought, though, I wonder if that is all that different from “symbol thinking.” After all, the artistic route is just as subjective – nobody’s perception, vision, etc is “perfect…” Additionally, no artistic representation is going to perfectly replicate the object being interpreted – not even clay molds. You could argue it is still a system of symbols, especially as the artistic interpretation/expression becomes more abstract.
It’s a fun read, but it needs more citations of Logical Positivists.
@ J Durden
To each his or hers own definition or subjective reality. Even when it comes down to definitions of how we arrive at that reality. That’s why I choose music, not clay models. Right now my question can be narrowed to : ‘Is human music thinking or not?’. And if not, how would you describe it ?
@ Ivo
I apologize, I didn’t get that far into your post. Your first few definitions seemed to be grasping at language. Music is a unique consideration. Let me read those parts of your post…
This statement is great, actually, and is in line with the points made by Schiller. He views thinking as a living process. Spoken language is more “alive” than is written language, and so it may be closer to approximating our thinking, but I wonder if we’ll ever be able to pin thinking down exactly. Maybe there’s a sort of Uncertainty Principle with thinking as well – we might be able to know one of its attributes at any given time, but not all of them?
I agree with a lot of what is said here, up until the end. I think if you look at examples of “geniuses” throughout history, my theory would be that they reached such dizzying heights because they became masters of precise language systems. Physics, mathematics, even music can be refined and perfected as very precise tools with powerful implications. Music is often said to have mathematic properties (time signatures, etc – I admit, I am no musician). Therefore, changing words in a given language may not be the best strategy. Rather, it might be advisable to keep languages precise and advocate that people learn many different languages to express different things. No one language will ever be able to precisely express every human experience.
As for music being distinct from symbolic thinking, this may be getting further into a semantic debate. It’s kind of like what I talk about above, with artistic thinking. If there’s something going on internally and we try to express it externally, then we are engaging in a language exercise. And generally, I think of music as speaking to our emotions specifically – so music may very well be an advanced language and system of symbols for emotions. This is my perspective, anyway. Certainly, my thoughts are no more absolute than yours.
Durden,
Contents:
0. Background on my Philosophical Education
1. Disagreement with Your Conclusion
a. Disagreeing with the Undefinability of Thought
b. Discord Between Introduction and Conclusion
c. Nature Independent of Describer
d. Attempt to Define Thought
2. Comments on Your Methodology
a. False Equivalence of Language and Thought
b. Paper Deals with Expressions/Examples Rather than Nature
3. Plato and Aristotle
4. Conclusion
0. Background on my Philosophical Education (or lack thereof):
Thank you for taking my comment seriously. My entire exposure to Philosophy comes from what I’ve absorbed in our culture, reading some Plato and selected portions of Aristotle. I’ve been exposed to St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica, though only as reference material, I just think the title “Philosopher” is cool.
Please pardon my impertinence if the previous message appeared rude. The original was filled with injections, “it seems to me” and “like.” In editing I felt it best to trade politeness for brevity.
Since I am not well educated in the subject as you
1. My Disagreement with Your Conclusion
1. a. Disagreeing with the Undefinability of Thought
My statement: “I disagree with the conclusion.” Is in response to “what is thinking, and what is the proper way to go about thinking? The answer is likewise simple: thinking and the proper way to go about are entirely up to the thinker to define.”
1. b. Discord Between Introduction and Conclusion
You begin in the introduction “what is thinking?” so I prepare myself for an article on the definition of its essence. You conclude “Thinking… is entirely up to the thinker to define.” What? According to your introduction wasn’t the point of your article to fill in the blank “Thinking is ___ .”?
1. c. Nature Independent of Describer
You point out in Section 2 that misunderstood definitions cause problems. So to alleviate this you … refuse to define what thought is?
The nature of “Thought” is not up to the thinker to define. The nature of everything else is independent of assumptions people make about it, why is thought different.
Real objects like rocks, trees and water don’t change if you call it “water” or “agua.” It is what it is. Similarly imaginary abstractions, very real, although surpassing our normal universe, is independent of the language it is expressed in. In mathematics 2+3 = 5 is the same in written French or arabic numerals. Representation may change but its eternal truth is transcendent. Even though thought is an abstraction, it is not any less real than mathematics, logic, the works of Mark Twain, or any other abstraction.
Thought exists in all sentient beings. Although we may understand it differently, the blind men examining an elephant, its nature doesn’t vary based on the perceiver.
1. d. Attempt to Define Thought
Thought, although apparently the processes of nerves emitting electrons in our brain, is something much greater than just that. If I were to ask you if I injured my leg, and said leg nerves ejected electrons, therefore I thought, you would claim that isn’t thinking (especially if I were a paraplegic and those electrons never reached my brain.) Similarly I don’t have to think to breath, even though nerves in my brain are firing similar electrons it doesn’t result in thought. The fact that I can define what it is not means that it can be defined, if even only in the negative. Thought is not that column there in this building, or that star burning hydrogen that warms our world. I’ve just defined two more things Thought is not, even though in the negative.
(I would even go so far to begin to define it in the positive claiming Thought is non physical, but that is for its own paper, not a small critique.)
Therefore I must disagree with your conclusion that the nature of Thought is user dependent.
2. Comments on your Methodology:
2. a. False Equivalence of Language and Thought
The thesis of your paper is the nature of thought. In your introduction you claim thought and language are equal but you give no reasoning for why you do this. You quote illustrates a relationship between thought and language but it also discredits you equivocation. By saying language borders thought you also say language is not thought. You don’t understand the nature of Iceland by examining that water which borders it on all sides. (False analogy but you understand my point.)
In order to make your paper about your thesis I assumed, “Since thought is hidden, to examine thought examine its apparent products. Language is a product or expression of thought and by examining expressions of language conclusions can be made about thought.” Similarly at one time electricity was studied by examining the motion of iron objects. Electricity was invisible but its visible effects were not. Its visible effects were used to craft a theory of electro-magnetism.
Your entire paper rests on the claim that language is thought which is false. A simple clarification about their relationship could quickly correct that.
(I claim language is a method of compressing, storing, and transferring thoughts.)
2. b. Paper Deals with Expressions/Examples Rather than Nature
By opening with discussion of the definition of thinking and giving examples of methods of thinking (or language) confuses the nature of the thing and examples or expressions of it. Upon asking me what is a mammal I don’t respond “here is a mouse, and a bear, and a kangaroo” you may conclude “a mammal is a warm blooded land animal that gives birth to its young.” If I add whale to the list I must strike “land animal.” If I add a platypus “gives birth to its young” must be stricken too.
Language illustrates methods of thinking. As such their commonalities and differences can be analyzed to conclude what is the nature of thought and what is this nature of this particular expression of thought, and how is it different from other expressions of thought. You do point out their commonalities and differences but you don’t try to use it to form a definition as you claim is your goal in the thesis. Even though this process may form an problematically narrow definition, that is part of the process of forming a definition.
3. Plato and Aristotle
It seems to me that Plato and Aristotle already at least began addressed it.
Aristotle’s first book in his Metaphysics specifically addresses Wisdom, Art, Science (Knowledge), and Experience.
Skimming Plato’s Sophist I see:
Str. When you tell him of something existing in a mirror, or in sculpture, and address him as though he had eyes, he will laugh you to scorn, and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and streams, or of sight at all; he will say that he is asking about an idea.
Theaet. What can he mean?
Str. The common notion pervading all these objects, which you speak of as many, and yet call by the single name of image, as though it were the unity under which they were all included. How will you maintain your ground against him?
Theaet. How. Stranger, can I describe an image except as something fashioned in the likeness of the true?
Str. And do you mean this something to be some other true thing, or what do you mean?
Theaet. Certainly not another true thing, but only a resemblance.
Str. And you mean by true that which really is?
Theaet. Yes.
Str. And the not true is that which is the opposite of the true?
Theaet. Exactly.
Str. A resemblance, then, is not really real, if, as you say, not true?
Theaet. Nay, but it is in a certain sense.
Str. You mean to say, not in a true sense?
Theaet. Yes; it is in reality only an image.
Str. Then what we call an image is in reality really unreal.
Theaet. In what a strange complication of being and not-being we are involved!
Str. Strange! I should think so. See how, by his reciprocation of opposites, the many-headed Sophist has compelled us, quite against our will, to admit the existence of not-being.
Theaet. Yes, indeed, I see.
I don’t know how things are done in the industry, but if I were writing a paper I would start with the masters.
4. Conclusion
Those are my thoughts on your paper. I apologize for the length of this reply, but you deserve my respect, and a full accounting of my opinion. I’m glad I could account for today what I did not have time to explain yesterday.
As I chastise you for citing uneducated undergraduates I expect you to take what I, not formally educated in philosophy, with a grain of salt.
Cogito, ergo sum.
“Rene Descartes was a drunken fart…” etc
@ Durden,
Thank you for your comments. You are absolutely right, I cannot escape grappling for words on this subject, it is at the edge of my ‘ego-tunnel’. Ego-tunnel as described by Thomas Metzinger in his latest book. Furthermore, some extra’s are lost in translation, English is not my mother’s tongue. But, besides this practical difficulties, I agree with you that we should keep trying to attain a 1 to 1 relation between words and thoughts whenever we use words to communicate. At least that is one of the things I read. However, I’m afraid there are some restrictions, unfortunately. The reason why I commented in the Spearhead was your invitation to comment with regards to men’s rights. I think the way we approach the subject ‘thinking’ might have some implications for men with regards to men’s rights and position. To shortcut a rather long story, and thereby leaving a lot of gaps, I stumbled upon the following peculiarities :
* When using words, there is always an additional meaning that cannot be communicated by words alone, part of this additional meaning is what might be called the emotional process-state. On the other hand, music is better suited to communicate the emotional process-state, but not suitable to approach the conscious process inside me. Antonio Damasio, amongst others, focused on this subject and concluded that for us humans it was impossible to think rationally without an emotional embedding, which cannot be described by words alone. I invented for my own use the term aureality, that what surrounds the words, to get some grip on this interesting phenomenon.
* I found out that, while it was rather difficult, it was not impossible to experience words and their logical constructs, the emotions attached to them, and the way this worked as a process. Although it was at the very end of what I was able to experience at any one time.
* Feelings are different from emotions. I can experience them as different, they are attached, but not necessarily in a undetectable and unreachable way. Feeling as a conscious experience are interpreted and thereby rationally approached emotions. Process-wise, emotions come first, are interpreted and then constructed as feelings. From the little I know about the latest neurological research, the results in this field don’t contradict this interpretation.
* Whenever feelings and emotions are experienced as one and the same they have a strong tendency to fixate any meaning. They immediately freeze the internal and as a result the external meaning in terms of process states, the process state that is attached to words. Emotions will keep the process state which expresses itself in words, amongst others as the description of a feeling, in place. For a lot of things this seems to be an absolute necessity in order to survive as biological creatures, but at the price of hampering creativity. Maybe it has something to do with the way our neurons are connected and keep firing at each other over a longer period of time, but I’m an absolute dummy in this field, so I wouldn’t know if this might be the case.
* One of the problems with feelings is that we normally experience them only after we have interpreted the emotion, and interpretation might be something very different from what the original emotions was. So we are prone to re-interpret emotion in a learned way, in a way that we think we are supposed to express them. And thereby substitute the emotion. The possibility of our brains to do this has been described at length and in various forms by psychologists.
* I have the impression that, in general, men and women differ with regards to the processing of emotions. I don’t mean every men and every women. On the other hand, I have met some men, mostly musicians I hasten to admit, who could experience emotions, interpretations and feelings as different but connected. I never met a women who could do the same. Every single women I met stated that feelings and emotions were one and the same. They could not experience them as ‘different but related’. Recent neurological research on the subject of our conscious experience of emotions and how this differs between men and women with regard for instance to sexuality, a strong emotional, but also morally, embedded subject, does not contradict this experience.
* Fixed meanings of words are extremely useful, not to say absolutely necessary, as communication instruments between humans. It is probably our most important tool as humans.
* The theoretical situation in which we have all the words available and they mean exactly the same thing to each and everyone would, without doubt, be very efficient in terms of ‘communication’ energy spent. In terms of survival it would be useful if the resulting construction would be sustainable, that is, environmental conditions and our own internal conditions would remain the same. In moral terms, we would have reached a perfect human society in a perfect world in a perfect equilibrium on every imaginable and unimaginable condition for survival. With some imagination I could construct it as a computer program. Doris Lessing, among others, described it in her novel ‘The Cleft’.
* On the average women, a little bit more than men, are inclined to interpret the world in a emotional and thereby fixed way in which words are used to express this fixed meaning as feelings, which may or may not correctly communicate attached emotions. And thereby using words as a one-on-one equivalents to communicate how they experience the world. (Very handy to get things done in a orderly way). I personally don’t believe that it is possible to communicate another meaning for words when they are used in this way, the emotional part of the process will not allow that and it is predictable that any attempt to do so will produce emotional resistance, or in other words, you have an emotional and very human discussion.
* I don’t want to imply that a fixed interpretation of the world rules out creativity in general, however I’m inclined to think that this creativity will always be restricted to recombination’s of existing meanings. To make an analogy, we can use lego blocks to create endless new forms, but it is still lego. Using quantum mechanics to recreate the possibilities when we combine lego and quantum mechanics is unthinkable in this situation. We have the possibility to effectively communicate in terms of lego but are restricted to legoland. Trying to communicate the possibilities of quantum mechanics in this situation is like explaining the color green to the color blind. It will probably not communicate.
* Some men have the possibility to jump to the unimaginable. Their emotions can be less fixed to interpretations as expressed, and fixated, in feelings and interpretations about how the world is supposed to be. That gives a degree of freedom in thinking, although jumping to the unimaginable always have some risks attached. The first is that you cannot communicate it, so you are on your own in that territory with all the implications. To prove to the rest of us humans that the unimaginable is imaginable and can be useful it has to be fixated in a form and the rest of us humans can communicate about this from that point on. Or, while proving, perish in trying to express the unimaginable, so that others can learn to avoid it. Human history – and maybe evolution in general that relies on sexual procreation – doesn’t seem to contradict this up to now. For ‘thinking in words’ it means that either new words have to be invented, old words used to express something new or a combination of these. I cannot imagine it any other way if we use words to communicate.
* I’m inclined to think that at this moment our current interpretations of the world are no longer suitable. We have to jump to the unimaginable, whether we like it or not.
* We probably don’t need a lot of men in order to survive biologically, we have done an excellent job in surviving, although it is probably in some need of further fine tuning in different area’s.
* We need a male way of thinking in order to jump to the unimaginable. It’s highly probable that the female way of thinking will not allow this. It might be, to paraphrase Frank Herbert in his novel ‘Dune’, the place where women cannot go – even if they would like to do so -.
* In order to avoid too much confusion we men are in dire need of women to lure us into bed and have us persuaded to not change the whole world at once. For the foreseeable future, we still need a lot of down-to-earth survival.
I’m on my lunch break so I’ve only got time to respond to one comment at the moment. Unfortunately for Ivo, Mr. N’s comes first. I’ll get to yours after I get off of work, Ivo.
@ Mr. N:
That’s not a problem at all. I’m no master of philosophy either; hopefully you can at least learn something from me.
I think this is the first place where you miss part of the intent. The title of the paper is “Communicating Thoughts and Thinking About Communication; The Duality of Reason.” It is not just about thinking – it is about how entwined thinking and language processes are. This is why I state the purpose of this essay is to more closely examine the link between language and thought, and put forth the foundation for an argument that asserts that language is, more or less, thought, as well as consider the implications of that idea in the introduction. It isn’t meant to be authoritative – it would take a lot more evidence and analysis to properly assert that idea. This is a sort of primer.
Objects do not change (perhaps) but the way that we think about them can change. Using words like “real” to describe objects implies figurative language that belies hidden assumptions about how we perceive reality. Some people have thought that inanimate objects have souls. I can’t verify their beliefs with any empirical devices I know of, but does that mean I should impose my perception of reality upon them?
Factor in findings from quantum mechanics that more or less establishes that things change merely because we observe them, and this argument about real objects being static suddenly doesn’t seem so authoritative. The language you are using to describe these things belies language assumptions that are addressed specifically in the essay. See also this quote:
Are you so sure of this? How can you verify that the elephant’s nature does not change? I am certain that a blind man will perceive of an elephant in a way that is different from a man who is not blind – especially if that blind man never had use of his sight. We all notice different details depending on our own individual tastes/biases/idiosyncrasies. The idea that any of us have “unmediated access to the real” is the same attitude that informs and justifies things like slavery and war – “our way is the only way!”
I suppose I did not clearly and fully state what I meant by user-dependent. I was assuming a degree of cooperativeness on the user to not describe patently absurd processes. Furthermore, in the context of the essay, I establish that thought is language. Therefore, when I say the correct way of thinking is up to the user to decide, I mean to say that the user can choose whichever language works best for him or her and for his or her purposes. The ideal would be to encourage users to learn several different languages so they have a variety of ways to express themselves – learning music may help them better express emotions, for instance, whereas math may help them solve problems (an expression of desire to improve, perhaps?) and a spoken language as we traditionally understand “language” would facilitate general communication. And why not learn several general languages? Instead, the norm is to impose only one language – the national language – with marginal attention paid to math and only lip service paid to music.
False. I go to great pains to establish that the average person holds many patently false language assumptions. I tactically chose the opening quote because some people grasp the connection between language and thought without fully understanding – which further lends credit to the idea that many people are both ignorant and arrogant when it comes to language assumptions. See also this quote:
You write “(I claim language is a method of compressing, storing, and transferring thoughts.)” Can you answer this question? What do thoughts become without language, then? (Furthermore, you are also rejecting without refuting my assertion that language is a system of symbols for interpreting the world.)
My thesis is stated quite clearly – I am establishing the foundation for an argument that language is thought. Period. Again, can you answer the question, what does thought become without language?
This would be contradictory to the nature of the paper, which serves in part to tear down the establishment. Language ideology (which I will be analyzing more in depth in a follow on post soon) is imposed by virtue of appealing to “experts” and “masters,” but it restricts free thinking and locks us into oppressive modes of thinking. Additionally, on a certain read, Plato can seem contradictory – he asserts universal truths but also seems to have a nascent awareness that orthographies distort truth somehow, and thus he has an entire “unwritten doctrine” that underpins all of his discussions.
Hopefully I was able to clear up any misunderstandings you may have had about my paper or my purpose. I’m not asking for people to agree with what I’m saying, but it would be best if their disagreement stemmed from understanding rather than misunderstandings.
@ Ivo
Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you just yet. This has been a much more hectic work week than imagined. I should have some time to respond to you more fully tonight (I’m in Japan, it’s about 1300 right now), as your post deserves a full response.
@ Durden,
Thank you and please do take all the time you need, with or without a reason. For me, this subject is a ‘slow mover’. On some aspects, it took me a couple of years to be able to stabilize, more or less, some aspects into thoughts. I wish you a short time-lag and a nice stay in Japan, and I enjoy your piece about language ideology
@ Ivo
I’d be careful before you go around saying I’m “absolutely” right. After all, that goes against the spirit of my findings. (Just teasing a little here, but you get the idea.)
I concur. What is your native language, by the way? I didn’t realize that English was not your first language. I only speak English (and some terrible French); I plan on fixing that in short order and learning another language soon.
I agree, and this is concurrent with what study of the field of communications will tell you. In fact, in face-to-face exchanges, words may only account for 7% of the meaning conveyed in any communication transaction – the rest is transferred through other mediums (or, I would argue, “languages”) such as body language, accent/intonation, and basically what is commonly referred to as “nonverbals.”
I think music is a great way to encapsulate specific feelings and preserve them, sort of the same way that written words encapsulate spoken words and preserves them. The rate at which we produce music, however, has not even begun to approach the rate at which we can produce writing. Perhaps this is because not very many people are taught music, compared to those who are taught orthographies.
He is not alone in this opinion. David Hume once observed that humans feel first and think later, to justify those feelings. This was an area I did not want to delve into with my paper, just yet, as I haven’t done enough research and it requires some very difficult thinking indeed. You’d need to answer the question of “what are emotions,” which seems to be just as slippery as “what is thinking?” After all, it seems possible to modulate and control emotions through different systems of thinking (stoicism, for instance) so it seems like emotions may also be related to language and facility for it.
It seems like you’re on to something here but I’m not quite following. Let’s see if we can hash out some of the terms. Emotions are the basis for feelings, which is what happens to emotions after they’ve been “processed” by our logical brain? Is that what you’re getting at? What sort of research are you referencing? Does this have anything to do with the amygdala?
Because I’m having trouble digesting your first premise, I’m having problems with the follow on. If feelings are emotions after they have been logically processed, how can someone experience them as “one and the same?” What is the true distinction between feelings and emotions?
Did you mean to say, “might be something very different from what the original feeling was?” If so, I think I agree.
Do you have any links to some of that evidence? This seems to support what I was saying about our ability to control our emotions with alternative thought models such as stoicism. This lends credence to the idea that different understandings of language/words can transfer into different realities, very literally.
Very, very interesting! I wonder if this has anything to do with why men seem to generate/compose music more often than do women, who only seem to be able to learn how to play back pieces they have been taught but who rarely if ever seem to be able to generate new music.
I concur completely. This is why mathematics have been so powerful in human history – it is a very precise language that is open to many different people in many different cultures regardless of the person’s “mother tongue.” But while one language that all people could speak that was very precise would certainly be extremely useful, I agree that it would not be absolutely necessary. I also agree that communication (in general) is the most important tool that humans have. I’ll have to add “The Cleft” to my ever-growing reading list.
I’m not sure if I disagree with what you’re saying, or merely misunderstand what you’re getting at. I would agree that women are more prone to being emotional, and I would also say that they have a vested interest in expanding language in order to make it more adaptable and suited to expressing their constantly changing emotional states. Men, who tend to have tighter control over their emotions, see less need for fulid and changing language, and prefer the benefits of static communication systems and more “fit” languages (as Nowak describes them). This is my take, anyway.
This is why we invent new languages – to communicate things that would have been impossible to communicate in other languages. If you look at any highly developed science or mathematical discipline (I would extend this argument to any “highly developed discipline” period, to include martial disciplines), they are almost entirely languages unto themselves. Part of breaking into the world and learning its secrets is to “learn the language.” Even jobs have this component. For example, my job does not require very much “action” or dexterity. All I am actively doing with my physical world all day is pushing buttons and reading manuals – this is not very hard to do. What is hard to do is to understand all the technical language and nuance, electronic theory and so on to figure out what’s wrong with our electronic gear and get it fixed.
Indeed. The problem I see is when we leap upon a great discovery and decide that it is so great and so useful that it needs to be imposed universally, while simultaneously suppressing all dissent. It is as though we fool ourselves into thinking we have found the ultimate truth, so we no longer need to look. (How many times has this been shown to not be the case? Even a cursory glance at science will show us this – we went from thinking the world was flat, to thinking it was the center of the universe, to thinking the sun was the center of the universe, to realizing the universe is perhaps infinitely vast and we are just tiny inconsequential specks on the outskirts.)
Your thoughts about emotions and their relation to ways of thinking are something worth considering, for certain. Thanks for the feedback, Ivo Vos!
{ 7 trackbacks }