Protagoras
New Member
Posts: 6
Likes: 8
Ancestry: Grew up on Dickens and Plato, loves Kant
Religion: Theist
Philosophy: Quasi- Neo-Aristotelean
|
Post by Protagoras on Dec 27, 2018 10:02:40 GMT
Hello all,
Here is a question for you all: What is the relationship between language and thought? Is language a direct effect of thought? Can language influence thinking? Do people who cannot hear think differently than people who can?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 27, 2018 20:47:23 GMT
There is indeed a convention. There's a phrase, "think before you speak". Basically you must put what you want to say in your thoughts before finding a language to share them in. So language is a direct thought even when one doesn't realize it. Just like you moving your arm...it's because the thought/signal came from the brain for it to move and you do it without realizing it. Language can also influence thinking especially the more languages you know because then the mind starts being influenced by the differences in the languages. More languages (even the ability to read music as my music teacher always told me) is good for the brain's growth and stuff. I don't think it matters much if you're deaf either. You'll go through much of the same thought processes except not hear spoken things. I'm sure their minds replaces that part with an extra mind process like when your missing an arm then the other arm takes over for both arms.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 28, 2018 3:32:11 GMT
If one rejects Plato and views beliefs as things constructed by the mind (hopefully based in external input), then the tools that the mind uses to construct beliefs will have a huge impact on thoughts and beliefs, and of course language is one of the biggest tools of the mind.
English and Spanish are similar, so I didn't gain mental tools from Spanish. But Hebrew is extremely different, so learning some Hebrew changed a lot of my thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 28, 2018 3:56:13 GMT
If one rejects Plato and views beliefs as things constructed by the mind (hopefully based in external input), then the tools that the mind uses to construct beliefs will have a huge impact on thoughts and beliefs, and of course language is one of the biggest tools of the mind. English and Spanish are similar, so I didn't gain mental tools from Spanish. But Hebrew is extremely different, so learning some Hebrew changed a lot of my thinking. How are English, Spanish, and Hebrew similar and different?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 29, 2018 0:31:06 GMT
How are English, Spanish, and Hebrew similar and different? English and Spanish are mostly similar. One exception is "bad" versus "evil" which doesn't exist in Spanish or Hebrew. The English "evil" is just the moral kind of badness, but what is the point of distinguishing this from other forms of badness? I see none. So "evil" in the Old Testament really means "bad" or "badness" of all kinds. English distinguishes between "heart" (emotions) and "mind" (thought). Hebrew doesn't, just one word for both. I agree with Hebrew, the separation makes no sense. The concept of the English "true" comes from Plato and doesn't exist in Hebrew. The closest concept is trustworthiness. Related to this, Hebrew has one word for "word", "thing", and "idea". There is no distinction, and this reflects a distinct lack of the "correspondence theory of truth" in Hebrew. And a minor example, the word translated as "angel" in the Old Testament just means messenger. That makes more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by elijahbaley on Mar 27, 2019 9:33:05 GMT
1. What is the relationship between language and thought? 2. Is language a direct effect of thought? 3. Can language influence thinking? 4. Do people who cannot hear think differently than people who can?
A1: Mathematics and Information theory. There are a variety of functions that correspond to the system state of the individual (information system); e.g. cognitive functions, context functions etc. Bottom line: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
A2: they are part of the same information system
A3: see A2
A4: see A2. the content/extent of the information system "impaired hearing" may be somewhat different from any information system "not impaired", but the general notions of language/thought are abstractions which don't require all elements of language to be present, to establish the abstract idea behind the concept (except for pronounciation)
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 3, 2019 17:25:27 GMT
Hello all,
Here is a question for you all: What is the relationship between language and thought? Is language a direct effect of thought? Can language influence thinking? Do people who cannot hear think differently than people who can?
O Protagoras, have you forgotten what you yourself said, namely that man is the measure (the "metron") of all things? To "measure" is to compare and to compare is to think of different things. If we compare Man and Flower, we have two thoughts or (generic) concepts which are linguistic (that is, sounds or sound-images) and involve two generic visual images. When children become visually acquainted with humans and flowers, their brains form generic images, which are their first thoughts. If they learn how to draw or paint, they can reproduce such images. The pictographs are mankind's earliest language (visual and mute). Then, when they hear people using sounds for visual objects, they can reproduce them: they can speak. They utter the auditory or sonic concepts, which they can elaborate into a simple language, especially by imitating adults. There is much more to be said... An imitated language certainly involves evaluations, beliefs, etc. That is how traditions are built.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 9, 2019 21:43:48 GMT
Hello all,
Here is a question for you all: What is the relationship between language and thought? Is language a direct effect of thought? Can language influence thinking? Do people who cannot hear think differently than people who can?
The question cuts right to the core of being, right to the very center of the multiverse itself. It centers on the dualist distinction between substance (thought) and form (words). Its not just language, but also math that needs to be considered. The first thought was likely "I". Which is Numerically "1". Good grief, you could get lost for eternity in trying to answer this great question. But it would be unwise to reject Plato. Where do we get the word/concept "infinity" from? We see it nowhere in the world. From where does the word/concept "perfect circle" come from? Dissecting the brain will find no such object. We are left with a fundamental dualism between substance and form, but! the dualism is united in our thoughts, our words and our spirit. Always more questions than answers on this topic. But the analytical benefits to the mind such yields are wondrous and powerful in the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 12, 2021 20:33:12 GMT
Hello all,
Here is a question for you all: What is the relationship between language and thought? Is language a direct effect of thought? Can language influence thinking? Do people who cannot hear think differently than people who can?
The question cuts right to the core of being, right to the very center of the multiverse itself. It centers on the dualist distinction between substance (thought) and form (words). Its not just language, but also math that needs to be considered. The first thought was likely "I". Which is Numerically "1". Good grief, you could get lost for eternity in trying to answer this great question. But it would be unwise to reject Plato. Where do we get the word/concept "infinity" from? We see it nowhere in the world.From where does the word/concept "perfect circle" come from? Dissecting the brain will find no such object. We are left with a fundamental dualism between substance and form, but! the dualism is united in our thoughts, our words and our spirit. Always more questions than answers on this topic. But the analytical benefits to the mind such yields are wondrous and powerful in the extreme. About infinity: you're right;it is not an empirical concept. Descartes says that it must be based on something or somebody (God) that is actually infinite. I disagree. In saying that it is not an empirical concept, I imply that we do not experience in any way anything infinite. But then,, HOW do we get such a concept? In my own case, when I was around 12 years old, one morning I was staring at the ceiling and I realized that here was space [the attic] on the other side... and,likewise more space above the roof, and, why not?, more space above the sky [the traditional celestial vault]. This amounted to rejecting barriers that make space finite or Aristotle would say, abstracting "space" from the particular empirical conditions, in the same way that we abstract colors, etc. (It remains a fact that I did not, and I do not, experience infinite Space; I have only a vague conception... Even less about infinite TIME, and practically nothing about infinite Being, the infinite/eternal universe even though I realize that it cannot have a beginning or an end...)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 12, 2021 21:08:04 GMT
My own opinion: there's a "superstructure" over language, or a tool which is being used by us. The "superstructure" are that include all the laws of language functioning, so it represents the mind, while the language represents the language.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 12, 2021 21:57:02 GMT
How are English, Spanish, and Hebrew similar and different? English and Spanish are mostly similar. One exception is "bad" versus "evil" which doesn't exist in Spanish or Hebrew. The English "evil" is just the moral kind of badness, but what is the point of distinguishing this from other forms of badness? I see none. So "evil" in the Old Testament really means "bad" or "badness" of all kinds. English distinguishes between "heart" (emotions) and "mind" (thought). Hebrew doesn't, just one word for both. I agree with Hebrew, the separation makes no sense. The concept of the English "true" comes from Plato and doesn't exist in Hebrew. The closest concept is trustworthiness. Related to this, Hebrew has one word for "word", "thing", and "idea". There is no distinction, and this reflects a distinct lack of the "correspondence theory of truth" in Hebrew. And a minor example, the word translated as "angel" in the Old Testament just means messenger. That makes more sense to me. You comparisons are interesting and well taken. Incidentally, it is also true in other languages that "heart" used to be conceived as the seat/organ of thought. And have you ever looked into the reason why you have the word "angel" that is actually the Greek word [Angelos/Aggelos] which means "messenger"? Anyway, the mentioned words are, as in the case of all "categorematic" words, thoughts/concepts. That's their nature. So, I think that the issue presented in this thread has to do with the relationship between a created language and thinking... For me, the basic difference between a philosopher [as of nature], and a scientist, since the 17th century is this: the philosopher investigates/analyzes nature through the language he has about nature; the scientist inquires by interacting with nature, as by experimentations, and by mathematical analyses. So, the quality of one's own native language is what makes it possible for there to be an Anaximander and a Democritus. If a language does not have names for processes, verbal nouns, or verbal adjectives, then, … If it has names of [specialized] gods, of thoughts, and virtues, then,... you guessed it.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 13, 2021 13:00:44 GMT
The question cuts right to the core of being, right to the very center of the multiverse itself. It centers on the dualist distinction between substance (thought) and form (words). Its not just language, but also math that needs to be considered. The first thought was likely "I". Which is Numerically "1". Good grief, you could get lost for eternity in trying to answer this great question. But it would be unwise to reject Plato. Where do we get the word/concept "infinity" from? We see it nowhere in the world.From where does the word/concept "perfect circle" come from? Dissecting the brain will find no such object. We are left with a fundamental dualism between substance and form, but! the dualism is united in our thoughts, our words and our spirit. Always more questions than answers on this topic. But the analytical benefits to the mind such yields are wondrous and powerful in the extreme. About infinity: you're right;it is not an empirical concept. Descartes says that it must be based on something or somebody (God) that is actually infinite. I disagree. In saying that it is not an empirical concept, I imply that we do not experience in any way anything infinite. But then,, HOW do we get such a concept? In my own case, when I was around 12 years old, one morning I was staring at the ceiling and I realized that here was space [the attic] on the other side... and,likewise more space above the roof, and, why not?, more space above the sky [the traditional celestial vault]. This amounted to rejecting barriers that make space finite or Aristotle would say, abstracting "space" from the particular empirical conditions, in the same way that we abstract colors, etc. (It remains a fact that I did not, and I do not, experience infinite Space; I have only a vague conception... Even less about infinite TIME, and practically nothing about infinite Being, the infinite/eternal universe even though I realize that it cannot have a beginning or an end...) When we apprehend the logos, is that empirical observation? Or is it the experience of our own inner being? It would be more accurate to consider it observation of phenomenon beyond the typical 5 sense experiences. So it really disintegrates our concept of separate thought and experience. So when we first appreciate the idea of infinity (or perfect circles) We experience what can only be described as
extra-sensory-perception.
Though it resembles thought and logic. Is perceiving logic not a perception? Semantic discussion, yes. What else can it be?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 13, 2021 16:43:39 GMT
Perhaps it is better not to use "empirical" at all, since it may confuse issues... We definitely have more than sensory experiences, such as what we become [emotions; esthetic feelings;], our own reason, thoughts; "perfect" concepts; tc. I like Aristotle's theory of the Nous/Mind/Intellect: Beyond the sensory powers, we have a Nous Poietikos (the Agent or Productive Intellect -- the Mental Eye, which penetrates, abstracts, forms ideas) and the Passive Intellect, that is,the resulting Understanding. He had to find some way out of Plato's belief that the Eide/Forms have a supernatural existence (even though they may be participated in). The intellect PRODUCES perfect circles and transcentental Ideas -- Being, Goodness, etc. (which are intimately connected with language or the language cerebral system. Man is creative in more ways than one. (Think of artists and of inventors). Amazing.
|
|
truth
New Member
Posts: 12
Likes: 2
|
Post by truth on Jan 19, 2021 13:56:04 GMT
|
|