TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
Are you this narrow-minded to recognise that the PLATFORM/MEDIUM of interaction that you are on right now is LANGUAGE-BASED so naturally any evidence you receive will be IN language.
There is a subtle and important distinction that you have missed in my exchange with creativesoul. You have emphasized the preposition “IN” in your post by capitalizing it. But the point that we were discussing did not make use of that preposition! We were discussing “thoughts that allegedly cannot be expressed THROUGH language.” There is a subtle distinction here.
creativesoul wrote:Not all thinking is through language concepts.
The preposition “through” is broader in scope than the preposition “in.” For example, let us consider the two propositions commonly used to express this subtlety, namely: “the cat is on the mat,” and “the mat is on the cat.” You will notice that even though each of these propositions convey different meanings/senses, both of these two different propositions contain the exact same words! The difference in their meaning is accounted for by the order in which these words are configured with respect to each other, and that order is NOT
stated IN the propositions themselves (i.e. IN one of its constituent elements such as words or phrases) but is SHOWN
through the proposition being uttered either orally or visually. This is a subtlety that has no real incidence on my contention with creativesoul on this thread but it is something that I think is important to recognize for philosophers.
So now, if you were to replace the preposition “IN” in your comment with the preposition “THROUGH”, then that would be a rhetorical expression of my point!
_____________________
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
What you have failed to specify is how broad or narrow your definition of 'language' is
Not at all! Now, notice that if a broad definition is intended then there is no need to specify! That would follow from an application of the rule of the economy of expression. To specify means to bring within narrow limits/scope or make precise!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
- all logic is language.
Agree.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 amMathematics is language.
Agree.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
Programming languages are language.
Oh yes!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 amAny medium that can enable human-to-human communication is language.
Still agreeing!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 amSo art is language!
Agree again.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 amMusic is language! Photography is language!
Agree.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 amCreation is language!
Absolutely agree.
_______________________
You could also have mentioned the sign language for the deaf and braille for the visually impaired or even the Morse code for that matter. Now, the interesting thing about all these examples of language is that they all share the fundamental attribute/characteristic of being an articulation of things/elements which is being used to express some thoughts. You mention photography and music as being languages, and that makes me think of Ludwig Wittgenstein who did the same in his analysis of language in his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP). He had interesting thoughts in that book that I think is worthwhile to quote in this discussion.
As Wittgenstein has put it:
- A thought is a proposition with sense. (TLP 4)
In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses. [TLP 3.1]
A proposition is not a blend of words.-(Just as a theme in music is not a blend of notes.)
A proposition is articulate. [TLP 3.141]
I call the sign with which we express a thought a propositional sign.-And a proposition is a propositional sign in its projective relation to the world. [TLP 3.12]
What constitutes a propositional sign is that in it its elements(the words) stand in a determinate relation to one another.
A propositional sign is a fact. [TLP 3.14]
A propositional sign, applied and thought out, is a thought. [TLP 3.5]
Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be put into words can be put clearly. [TLP 4.116]
And as I already pointed out, references to music and photographic depiction are frequent analogies that Wittgenstein drew upon in discussing about language, signs and thoughts. And that could be partly explained by the fact that he himself played the piano and that he also liked watching Western movies! Anyway, that was just a bit of background information.
Wittgenstein wrote:
- A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the sound-waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation of depicting that holds between language and the world.
They are all constructed according to a common logical pattern. [TLP 4.014]
There is a general rule by means of which the musician can obtain the symphony from the score, and which makes it possible to derive the symphony from the groove on the gramophone record, and, using the first rule, to derive the score again. That is what constitutes the inner similarity between these things which seem to be constructed in such entirely different ways. And that rule is the law of projection which projects the symphony into the language of the musical notation. It is the rule for translating this language into the language of gramophone records. [TLP 4.0141]
The possibility of all imagery, of all our pictorial modes of expression, is contained in the logic of depiction. [TLP 4.015]
In order to understand the essential nature of a depiction, we should consider hieroglyphic script, which depicts the facts the it describes. [TLP 4.016]
So, all those examples that you kindly provided can be viewed in the broadest definition of language as propositional signs used to express some thoughts. And that’s fine. On my side there is no issue here but only agreement.
However, my contention with member creativesoul was when he/she said that there are some thoughts that cannot be expressed
through language concepts. Of course, that is his/her right to have that point of view. But if he is right then that would mean that we (i.e. members of PN forum) can have absolutely no evidence whatsoever if those alleged thoughts truly exist as they cannot be expressed at all through language! The only choice that is given to us now is to accept the statement “not all thinking is through language concepts,” without the possibility of any questioning whatsoever! For, if we are to have evidence of the existence of those alleged thoughts, then the only way is for us not to have that evidence! And if we are not to have evidence of those alleged thoughts, then we cannot know if those alleged thoughts truly exist! That is what is referred to as a
catch-22 (i.e. in a nutshell, a trap for the fools)! And effectively what just happened is that creativesoul has got some members to accept something just because he/she said so! The problem now is that I always have had great difficulty with that approach! I just cannot accept statements from others without them providing some evidence for their assertions, but, of course, I completely respect anyone’s choice for buying the claim that “not all thinking is through language concepts,” without any evidence whatsoever! For myself, philosophically I just cannot buy that just because someone says so. And it turns out, according to the claimer himself/herself that no such evidence will be coming any time soon!
If you allow me a personal reflection on this, then I will like to tell you that this situation reminds me of the story of “the emperor has no clothes!” If you are still bearing with me, I would like to quote Wikipedia on this story:
- A vain emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires weavers who promise him they will make him the best suit of clothes. The weavers are con-men who convince the emperor they are using a fine fabric invisible to anyone who is either unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The con lies in that the weavers are actually only pretending to manufacture the clothes; they are making make-believe clothes which they mime. Thus, no one, not even the emperor nor his ministers can see the alleged "clothes", but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions, and the emperor does the same. Finally, the weavers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him, and the emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all, and the cry is taken up by others. The emperor realizes the assertion is true but continues the procession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emper ... ew_Clothes
That story always makes me laugh, and it has not worn out with time!
_________________________
Thanks for that reference. But I see absolutely no example of thoughts that cannot be expressed through language concepts in that article! Can you point it out to me by quoting it from the Wikipedia article?!
Anyway, as an aside, that article on Temple got me thinking about the movie on her story played by Claire Danes. I watched that a while ago, and I found it to be quite interesting. But as with the Wikipedia article, I did not evidence/witness any thought that could not be expressed through language concepts!
I thought that this would be a brief discussion, but it turns out that I had to spell out all these underlying subtleties already expressed concisely in my brief response to creativesoul. Anyway, thank you all for taking the time to read through this long post of mine. And thank you for the exchange. It is nice to philosophize here again.
__________________________