Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:04 pm

All statements, assuming sincerity in speech, are statements that the speaker believes to be true. Truth is presupposed in thought/belief statements. The presupposition of truth inherent to all statements is the result of drawing a correlation between what the statement is saying about the way things are, and the way things are. When the truth of the statement is not presupposed, it is not thought/believed by the speaker. No presupposition of truth, no statement of thought/belief.

All statements are meaningful. All meaning consists of something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or otherwise connecting the two.

All language is predication. All predication consists of meaningful correlation. All statements of thought/belief consist of meaningful correlation.

So, at the very least, all this must somehow inform our task of setting out and/or discovering non-linguistic thought/belief.

Non-linguistic thought/belief must consist of correlation, presuppose it's own truth, and be meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
Last edited by creativesoul on Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by Averroes » Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:50 pm
Averroes wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:54 pm
Trajk Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:58 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

This is a story about a deaf man that never learned any language, including sign language, until he was 27. If he wasn't able to think prior to learning a language, then how did he feed, dress, and take care of himself?

How can we learn a language at all if we don't think prior to learning it?

Language is simply visual scribbles and sounds in the air. We must be able to see and hear and to be able to organize our thoughts in order to make any sense of, and to be able to distinguish between, different visuals and sounds.
Interesting example. Concerning the topic of this thread, I think Chomsky is right on this, and this is the view of mainstream linguistics, that language is innate. You made an interesting observation by asking the question: "How can we learn a language at all if we don't think prior to learning it?"
I have taken that question as a rhetorical question. Now if one were to follow this line of reasoning through, then it becomes apparent that language is innate. For if it is necessary for one to be able to think before using language, then language cannot be learned for thinking is through concepts, and if these were not learned, (I.e. prior to acquiring the language of our surrounding), then these concepts must be innate. In a nutshell, this is what Chomsky and modern linguists think about it. And there is an emormous amount of empirical evidence which back this view. Modern linguistics takes language to be innate. Much like babies are born with sight, touch, smell etc., they are also born with language. And as their sense organs develop as they grow up, so too they experience language growth (Chomsky used that expression in one of his interviews).
Not all thinking is through language concepts.
Give examples of some thinking without language!

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:20 pm

Averroes wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:50 pm
Averroes wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:54 pm


Interesting example. Concerning the topic of this thread, I think Chomsky is right on this, and this is the view of mainstream linguistics, that language is innate. You made an interesting observation by asking the question: "How can we learn a language at all if we don't think prior to learning it?"
I have taken that question as a rhetorical question. Now if one were to follow this line of reasoning through, then it becomes apparent that language is innate. For if it is necessary for one to be able to think before using language, then language cannot be learned for thinking is through concepts, and if these were not learned, (I.e. prior to acquiring the language of our surrounding), then these concepts must be innate. In a nutshell, this is what Chomsky and modern linguists think about it. And there is an emormous amount of empirical evidence which back this view. Modern linguistics takes language to be innate. Much like babies are born with sight, touch, smell etc., they are also born with language. And as their sense organs develop as they grow up, so too they experience language growth (Chomsky used that expression in one of his interviews).
Not all thinking is through language concepts.
Give examples of some thinking without language!
All thought/belief consists of correlations. Drawing a correlation between things is existentially dependent upon a plurality of things and a creature capable of doing so. If thought and belief can be said to be formed and/or otherwise held/had by non linguistic beasties, then the beast is drawing a correlation between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or itself. The itself portion is critical to understanding the evolutionary process of thought/belief.

Written history shows that human knowledge accrues complexity and there is no good reason to believe that thought/belief are any different. Since all thought and belief consists of correlations, non linguistic rudimentary thought/belief must consist of correlations drawn between things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the creature's thought/belief.

It is crucial for us to not conflate our report with what we're reporting on. Understanding thought and belief requires drawing and maintaining the distinction between our accounts and what we're taking account of. When we're first taking an account of our own thought/belief, we're taking account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our account of it. So the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief is imperative to draw and maintain.

Chomsky and all others have failed here...

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 pm

To command another to offer examples of thinking without language is to use language itself in a potentially confusing manner. I cannot offer an example of anything without language, for language is the means by which I provide the example. However, the question is not about whether or not I am able to provide an example without using language to do so. We're not looking into whether or not language is required in order for me to be able to provide an example. We're looking at whether or not language is required in order for my example to exist, in it's entirety, prior to my providing an account of it. My account requires language. The example I'm taking account of does not always.

Mt Everest. The sun. The moon. Non-linguistic thought/belief.

Each of these things exists in it's entirety prior to our ability to take an account of it. It would behoove us all to not conflate between that which exists in it's entirety prior to our account and our account. Our account has a different set of existential conditions than what we're taking account of. Mt. Everest is existentially dependent upon different things than our account of Mt. Everest.

Our account of non-linguistic thought/belief requires language. Our knowledge of it requires the same. The existence of it does not.
Last edited by creativesoul on Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:19 pm

Non linguistic thought and belief consists of correlations drawn between things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the creature's thought/belief(prior to being a part of a correlation). The content of the correlation is equivalent to the content of thought/belief. That does not change even after language acquisition has begun in earnest. What all thought/belief is about, the 'about-ness' of thought/belief, is determined solely by virtue of the content of the correlation. Some of the simplest thought/belief are correlations drawn between fear/hunger and other things, such as that which is being perceived at the moment that fear takes hold, or that which is being perceived around the time that hunger takes hold and/or is removed/satisfied.

So, the drake has drawn a connection between the food bin and it's own hunger, as well as a correlation between me, it's food bin, and it's getting food after I go over to the bin. I know this because the drake clearly has expectations when I walk over towards the food bin. His eating behaviour is identifiable and distinct from his lounging behaviour or his mating behaviour. He behaves as he does when he's about to get fed, every time he's hungry and I approach the bin, regardless of whether or not he does get fed at that particular time.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:15 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:19 pm
Non linguistic thought and belief consists of correlations drawn between things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the creature's thought/belief(prior to being a part of a correlation). The content of the correlation is equivalent to the content of thought/belief. That does not change even after language acquisition has begun in earnest. What all thought/belief is about, the 'about-ness' of thought/belief, is determined solely by virtue of the content of the correlation. Some of the simplest thought/belief are correlations drawn between fear/hunger and other things, such as that which is being perceived at the moment that fear takes hold, or that which is being perceived around the time that hunger takes hold and/or is removed/satisfied.

So, the drake has drawn a connection between the food bin and it's own hunger, as well as a correlation between me, it's food bin, and it's getting food after I go over to the bin. I know this because the drake clearly has expectations when I walk over towards the food bin. His eating behaviour is identifiable and distinct from his lounging behaviour or his mating behaviour. He behaves as he does when he's about to get fed, every time he's hungry and I approach the bin, regardless of whether or not he does get fed at that particular time.
Here, the difficulty between separating our account of the drake's thought/belief and the drake's thought/belief is resolved by virtue of looking at the existential dependency of both, the content of our account and the content of the drake's thought/belief.

In our accounts, it is most common to say that the drake believes 'X', where 'X' is a proposition/statement. The belief that approach does precisely this. This is necessary as a result of how taking an account of something works, and it works fine as long as we're taking an account of belief statements. The drake has none. One may say that the drake believes that he is about to be fed when he sees me walk towards the food bin. That would be ok as long as we do not conflate my account(that he believes he is about to be fed) with what I'm taking account of(the drake's thought/belief). In particular, we must take every precaution to avoid conflating the content of my account with the content of what's being taken into account. My account consists of a report of the drake's thought/belief, and as such it is in propositional form. The drake's thought/belief does not, and is not.

While it's ok to say that the drake believes that he is about to get fed, it's not ok to say that the drake's thought/belief has propositional content. The right thing to say is that the drake's thought/belief consists of correlations. The content is precisely the content of the correlations. The correlation is the thought/belief. Drawing these correlations is thought/belief formation. That's how thought/belief is formed and/or recognized/remembered/re-formed. The content is hunger pangs, me, and the food bin. All of these things are perceptible and exist in their entirety prior to being a part of the drake's correlation.

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by Averroes » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:58 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:20 pm
Averroes wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:50 pm


Not all thinking is through language concepts.
Give examples of some thinking without language!
So, after you had said to me that "not all thinking is through language concepts," I have asked you to give evidence for that statement of yours by giving examples and you replied:
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 pm
I cannot offer an example of anything without language, for language is the means by which I provide the example.
So, it turns out that you made a statement that you not only cannot back by evidence but it turns out according to you yourself that it is even logically impossible for you to back up with evidence your statement that "not all thinking is through language concepts."

That's it! Case closed. Thank you for this exchange.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:04 pm

Averroes wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:58 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:20 pm
Averroes wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm


Give examples of some thinking without language!
So, after you had said to me that "not all thinking is through language concepts," I have asked you to give evidence for that statement of yours by giving examples and you replied:
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 pm
I cannot offer an example of anything without language, for language is the means by which I provide the example.
So, it turns out that you made a statement that you not only cannot back by evidence but it turns out according to you yourself that it is even logically impossible for you to back up with evidence your statement that "not all thinking is through language concepts."

That's it! Case closed. Thank you for this exchange.
Seems that there are some reading comprehension issues...

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:10 am

To lessen the number of fools...

:|


In each and every situation where someone offers an example of something to another person, they offer a linguistic account and/or report of that something... whatever it may be. There are no examples to the contrary. All accounts consist of language use. And here yet again, there are no examples to the contrary. It only follows that it is impossible to offer an account of anything without using language.



The above argument couldn't be any stronger in terms of it's justificatory strength and/or warrant.

It quite simply does not follow from that that what's being taken into account is also existentially dependent upon language. A person can readily offer an example of something that most certainly existed prior to our account of it. That is to offer an example of something that is not existentially dependent upon language. Something that exists in it's entirety prior to language is without language. Thought/belief that exists in it's entirety prior to language is thought/belief without language.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by A_Seagull » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:52 am

Averroes wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm


Give examples of some thinking without language!
Riding a bicycle.

Playing GO

Eating

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am

Averroes wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:58 pm
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:20 pm
Averroes wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:33 pm


Give examples of some thinking without language!
So, after you had said to me that "not all thinking is through language concepts," I have asked you to give evidence for that statement of yours by giving examples and you replied:
creativesoul wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 pm
I cannot offer an example of anything without language, for language is the means by which I provide the example.
So, it turns out that you made a statement that you not only cannot back by evidence but it turns out according to you yourself that it is even logically impossible for you to back up with evidence your statement that "not all thinking is through language concepts."

That's it! Case closed. Thank you for this exchange.
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.

What you have failed to specify is how broad or narrow your definition of 'language' is - all logic is language. Mathematics is language. Programming languages are language. Any medium that can enable human-to-human communication is language. So art is language! Music is language! Photography is language! Creation is language!

if you want more examples on thinking without language - do some homework on autism. You can start with her work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

Or just recognize that the majority of the population are spatial tinkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking

Averroes
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by Averroes » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm

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 am
Mathematics 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 am
Any medium that can enable human-to-human communication is language.
Still agreeing!
TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
So art is language!

Agree again.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
Music is language! Photography is language!
Agree.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
Creation 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!
_________________________

TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am
if you want more examples on thinking without language - do some homework on autism. You can start with her work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
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.
__________________________

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:49 pm

Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm
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!
Naturally, but given your agreement with all of the examples I have proposed it seems to me that there is no communication medium that you DON'T consider to be 'language'. And so any form of successful self-expression is 'language'. And so your claim is tautological?

And yet is precisely the thoughts which I can't express THROUGH any medium are the ones which you require evidence for...
How might one convince you that such thoughts exist?

For example I can convey the NOTION of a psychedelic experience, but not the CONTENT of the experience itself. Is that sufficient?

There is a book worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Polit ... f_Paradise

Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm
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!
Don't look to others. Look to yourself? If you can't find some idea within yourself that you do not how to express in language, then I think it is fair to say that there is not a single, original idea in your head ;)

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:17 am

Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm
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!
I'm not sure that I am actually disagreeing with what you say here. Honestly, I've no reason to think that what you've put forth has any bearing at all upon what I've been arguing for. We agree here, evidently given the part above that I emphasized but you wrote. I haven't counted, but it seems to me that there are a number of different arguments I've offered for different statements I've made, all of which play an important role in the position I'm arguing for/from.

Care to address them?



Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm
...As Wittgenstein has put it:
  • A thought is a proposition with sense. (TLP 4)
The above is prima facie evidence of the the inherently inadequate notion of thought that Witt worked from.

I learned much from studying Witt. By my lights, his showing everyone that meaning is attributed in more ways than just reference was his greatest gift to us. Although, many perhaps most folk seem to glorify his notion of language games and many also like to wrongfully equate meaning and use. I find most of that agreeable, but not all. On my view, he and others such as the speech acts theorists, the ordinary language guys/gals, and Quine made a different mistake by virtue of concluding that we cannot be mistaken in our definition and/or word use except if we do not use it in the most common sense.

I wholly disagree with that.




Witt followed the conventional(epistemological) notion(s) of thought and belief. I am capable of clearly explaining exactly how that conflates two very distinct things. From Aristotle through today, philosophy proper has not - I repeat - philosophy proper has not ever been graced with someone who showed that to be the philosophical error of ways that it is. It reeks of the vestiges of a long since forgotten worldview.

So...

Witt and I disagree. He's not here to defend himself. I cannot count the number of times that I've seen Witt's mantra parroted with regard to his and his followers' talk about getting 'beneath' language(scare-quotes intentional). I want to compare and/or contrast the respective different notions, ideas, and/or conceptions of "thought" if you'd like. I'm in no hurry to bang on about it. I'll generally check daily...



I would first point out that if all thought were a proposition with sense, then either propositions exist prior to language or there is no such thing as non-linguistic thought.

Do you agree with this assessment?
Last edited by creativesoul on Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Is It Possible To Think Without Language?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:23 am

Averroes wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm

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!
What a bunch of bullshit!

Start off by misattributing words to me, then offer a whole slew of non-sequiturs all the while pissing in the well...

That's fucking remarkable how many fallacies can be packed into a single paragraph! Textbook.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest