Language and Thinking

[Fist and Faith]

It appears that you are basically arguing for the elimination of clear meaning. This means the elimination of clear thinking, for clear thinking must demand clear expression and well-defined language.

Wow! This could probably be a huge debate! Really, I'm not the one to take the opposing side, because I don't know enough about the opposing points. Maybe others can fill in. And you are correct for many situations. Our thinking created language, and our language influences how we think. The two are closely tied.

However, I can see the problem. First, it suggests that those with no language cannot think clearly. We have no way of knowing that. We might not be able to recognize their way of expressing what they think, even if they do so easily with each other.

But that's hypothetical. We don't know of any beings who think, clearly or not, but don't have language. (It might be assumed that, if any of the earth's other species could think clearly, they'd be trying to stop us from hurting them so much.) So we don't know either way.

However, are there not examples of humans who thought more clearly by throwing away definitions and language? Could it be that doing this is the very reason Einstein was able to come to greater understanding, an understanding that has been proven correct countless times, of reality?

It is beyond obvious to say that language is among the most important things in our lives. And in the development of all aspects of every culture and society he have. What I'm saying is that your statement shouldn't be considered an absolute truth about thinking. There are times when language and/or strict definitions will limit thinking.

[Vraith]

I could go an at length about this, even extreme length, but I'll keep to a few basics. The answer is entirely it depends what you are thinking about.
There are any number of methods of clear thought that don't require language, some which cannot be expressed in language at all, and some which language thinking actually interferes with...and of course some things that cannot be thought without language.
But the root of language isn't in any need to think about the world, it's in the need to communicate what we think to others: when we see the deer, or find the berries, we don't need language to think/know/understand them, we need it to tell the tribe.
And almost nothing we've thought/invented with/through language is necessary at a basic survival level. [For clarity: it became necessary because we were so successful that the only real threat to us as a species was each other...even then, it's the communicative that's primary need].
To me, music, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, philosophy...they're beautiful, valuable, meaningful in part because of the simple fact that they are unnecessary for, in addition to, animal survival, that we don't need them, yet we NEED them.
Some of those clearly require language, some just as clearly do not [sorry for the little digression at the end].

[Fist and Faith]

I agree, more-or-less. And in the beginning, that was definitely the case. But language does influence how we view and think about everything. I'm not sure to what degree thought could take place in us now if we suddenly lost all language.

[aliantha]

We could still think in pictures. And gestures.

I dunno, Fist. If we didn't have language, it might be easier to cut to the chase about some things.

[Avatar]

Great post Vraith. (Have you ever mentioned what it is that you do btw? Just curious.)

In a sense, I agree with Russ. Which is why I'm always so keen on definitions. If you don't have a shared definition, you're not talking about the same thing.

Equally though, that definition has to be absolutely clear and accurate. Otherwise you're only superficially talking about the same thing.

--A

[Vraith]

Great post Vraith. (Have you ever mentioned what it is that you do btw? Just curious.)

In a sense, I agree with Russ. Which is why I'm always so keen on definitions. If you don't have a shared definition, you're not talking about the same thing.

Equally though, that definition has to be absolutely clear and accurate. Otherwise you're only superficially talking about the same thing.

--A

I don't know if I've ever said what I do...I graduated from the vocal part of Musicians Institute in L.A. I have degrees in Theater, Education [both bach, and a minor in Philosophy] Masters English Lit. [fields 20thC. American and Theory&Criticism..not quite as impressive as it looks typed out like that...the real hard stuff and specialization doesn't start till PhD studies].
What I work at is private tutoring in English...everything from middle school to B.A., the majority is peeps looking to score well or improve score ACT/SAT and generic "freshman comp."
What I do is write. Just recently an agent has expressed interest, wants to see more, a publisher wants to see a manuscipt, and I'm in the running to have a play produced...so maybe that will go somewhere.
Yea, I know often I don't post here as if I knew any of that stuff...but I could if I wanted.
And wow, that's probably way more than you wanted to know!

And Fist: I agree completely that if we lost language now, the world as we know it would vanish, probably in extreme violence.
I'm a very language-centered person. I can enjoy a painting or building...even poetry and novels...but I struggle to really understand it till I start talking about it. [which is weird, in a way for poetry and novels: language about language.]

[Fist and Faith]

In a sense, I agree with Russ. Which is why I'm always so keen on definitions. If you don't have a shared definition, you're not talking about the same thing.

Equally though, that definition has to be absolutely clear and accurate. Otherwise you're only superficially talking about the same thing.

All true. It might be that we couldn't have any conversation (even if we could still have communication) without some kind of language. And clearly defined terms are necessary for certain types of conversations and goals.

But rus isn't talking about conversation, or even communication. He's saying we can't have clear thinking without clear expression and well-defined language.

[Avatar]

Hahaha, thanks Vraith. You'll now be obliged to give us the benefit of your scholastic knowledge whenever applicable. (My degrees are in Philosophy and Communications, and for money I pretty much write content for websites all day.)

But rus isn't talking about conversation, or even communication. He's saying we can't have clear thinking without clear expression and well-defined language.

You can't really. Like Vraith, I'm pretty much a strictly language-orientated person...everything for me, including my thought processes, are verbally directed.

That said, I do have abstract, non-verbal concepts. Or at least, they're concepts that struggle with verbal expression. But unless they can be clearly expressed, they can't be clearly understood, not even by me.

To really be able to test the merit of your feeling or opinion, you have to be able to understand it. and the test of that understanding is the ability to render it in understandable terms.

Emotion isn't "thoughtful." It's very abstract. And once you unearth the meaning and cause, it inevitably becomes less emotional.

--A

[rusmeister]

This is really something I'd like to develop as a thesis. I'd have to sew together a lot of examples, using history. etymology, the motivations of people who coined modern terminology, etc, to show the philosophical aims of efforts to change language usage, how this caused a new generation of euphemism and vague language in order to mask the changes actually being proposed, etc...

If you don't have clear language, then you cannot express clear thinking. Maybe your thinking is of monumental clarity - but there's no way any of us could know it if your language is not clear and precise. We can only know what you lay out, in terms of argument. So it is a vital rule of debate and rhetoric (honest debate, as opposed to political debate) to use precise language. What I'm NOT saying is that intelligence is impossible without language. What I am trying to say above all, is that most modern thought is muddled because it is based on imprecise thinking, reflected in imprecise speech. (BTW, I am agreeing with Vraith on the emphasis on communication.)

We could still think in pictures. And gestures.

I dunno, Fist. If we didn't have language, it might be easier to cut to the chase about some things.

There is little doubt that Ali is right in that we could cut to the chase about a few things But not nearly as many as those that we can using language.

I've "babbled on" about Lewis and Chesterton (and haven't yet about Belloc) because their thinking is precise on a level that I had hitherto not encountered before reading them (and me with an M.A. in lit, myself). It is not so obvious with GKC, although it's readily obvious to serious readers of Lewis.

[Vraith]

Euphemism can be a problem: I once posted in another thread that I wished people would stop saying "I like hunting" when what it means is "I like killing." [obviously, I'm talking sport hunting, not survival hunting]. But there are contexts where euphemism is useful or necessary.

And it's clear to me precise language/strict definitions have a role in communication/debate. Philosophers in particular go to great lengths to strictly define their terms.
Some writers do as well.
But this precision/specificity requirement is directly related to the intent, the complexity, and the importance of the matter at hand. I have been known [quite often, actually] to make up words simply because I needed one to mean what I meant [a silly example, running a roleplaying game many years ago, I made up the word "clittering" for the sound the players heard...because clittering was what it was. Not clatter, not chitter, not some of both, a unity of them...they laughed for weeks about the word]. When writing for college papers and while public school teaching I sometimes was called to task for it, but I defended it, and continued it. [I mentioned this for a reason...I'll return to it..call this point A]

But precision and strict definition aren't that simple. Context and themes and structure all interact with definition. The others P.O.V., background, intent, fundamental attitudes [especially if they really are fundamental...if the other refuses, ever, to change] can warp and twist and reinterpret even the simplest, clearest statement...and do it simply and clearly.
The K.I.S.S. principle only works for the simple and stupid.
Precision and definition, despite important functions, are often, very often, used in an utterly different way, though: an attempt to control thinking in others, limit their ability to oppose, stifle originality and creativity, maintain authority and tradition.
And precision and definition can relate in interesting ways to each other. An example for myself: when I write poetry, I very specifically and precisely use words to purposely, intentionally, create not one meaning, but as many meanings as possible. Anti-sonnet: exactly not a single subject and theme and over-arching metaphor. But that doesn't mean wispy, unclear, muddled; a net is more complex than a rope, but in no way less rigorous or purposeful, functional, meaningful. It probably sounds like long picky process...but it comes naturally to me [though the nature of it is probably why I only occaisionally am inspired to do it.]
And now to return to point A, and more precisely to the topic: I mentioned that because language is squirrelly, almost alive in itself; it functions multiply. We have an "AH HAH!"...may or may not be in linquistic terms at conception: but we start thinking about it in language. That's one. But sometimes that is insufficient, so we have to invent new language to describe it...this can be true whether or not the original idea was a language one. Even if we don't need to invent new words, we have to use them in an original way. That's two. And then, sometimes, language itself is the thing that creates the new idea. It is generative, not only descriptive, or communicative, [there's more than one reason for the phrase "In the beginning was the Word"...though I only agree with the sentiment of it, not the order or actual truth of it]. That's 3.
One could probably make a sort of Venn diagram of how those three overlap, and where they have separate territory. But notice, we're 3 layers deep already, and still haven't gotten out of our own heads.
But I'll stop now. I'm fully aware that things that fascinate me don't necessarily do so for others.

[aliantha]

Great post, Vraith.

[Lord Mhoram]

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

[Vraith]

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

I'm pretty sure he backed off from that, and nearly 100% sure he said [paraphrased] "That doesn't mean what you think it does."

[rusmeister]

I've spoken about euphemisms a number of times here. I'd once again reference GKC's "On Evil Euphemisms, to which I am indebted for opening my eyes to the enormous number in play today.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/on_e ... misms.html

It's an abridged version, only a few paragraphs long, and I'd rather people go to the link than that I post it here. But if I had to post it here, I suppose I could.

My thesis is that a lot of how we think about issues is formed for us, by the language we learn to use, imposed on us via schooling and the media, and euphemisms play a huge role in that. Whether the topic is "gay rights", "abortion", "birth control", "the war on terror", or whatever, how we think about something starts from the terms we accept and use. (This covers probably everything we (adults) hear from the media.)But I'd rather start from GKC's essay. Then we might have some common understanding of what I mean by "euphemism".

[Fist and Faith]

I don't think this topic applies only to the "hot topics." Language has a lot to do with how we think about everything. Whether or not thinking can occur without language, most human thinking does not. We think with words.

And I don't think only schooling and the media are doing what you are talking about. There's no such thing as an agenda-free organization. So every organization, from the Democratic Party to the Orthodox Church, says things a certain way in order to convince people of their point of view. Even organizations that want to be impartial in all ways say things in certain ways in order to achieve that agenda. Even individual people say things in their own ways (which are formed over whatever their current lifetime is, and are influenced by every important group and individual that has had an impact on them, as well as personal preference), and influence others.

[aliantha]

Thanks for making my point, Fist. I was going to say, rus, that your wanting to get rid of the words you call euphemisms is an attempt to get people to agree to use *your* euphemisms. You don't want to call yours euphemisms, of course -- you want to call them "the word most closely aligned with the truth". But it's *your* truth that the word is most closely aligned with.

*Every* word is, by its very nature, a euphemism. It has to be. It's not the thing it describes -- it's a one-word description of the thing.

[rusmeister]

I don't think this topic applies only to the "hot topics." Language has a lot to do with how we think about everything. Whether or not thinking can occur without language, most human thinking does not. We think with words.

And I don't think only schooling and the media are doing what you are talking about. There's no such thing as an agenda-free organization. So every organization, from the Democratic Party to the Orthodox Church, says things a certain way in order to convince people of their point of view. Even organizations that want to be impartial in all ways say things in certain ways in order to achieve that agenda. Even individual people say things in their own ways (which are formed over whatever their current lifetime is, and are influenced by every important group and individual that has had an impact on them, as well as personal preference), and influence others.

Agreed. But hopefully you'll agree that no other organizations have the influence those two do. It's hard to beat compulsory government schooling for the most important years, days, and hours of of the most formative years of our lives, and outside of that, it's hard to escape the media - darn near impossible, in fact.

[rusmeister]

Thanks for making my point, Fist. I was going to say, rus, that your wanting to get rid of the words you call euphemisms is an attempt to get people to agree to use *your* euphemisms. You don't want to call yours euphemisms, of course -- you want to call them "the word most closely aligned with the truth". But it's *your* truth that the word is most closely aligned with.

*Every* word is, by its very nature, a euphemism. It has to be. It's not the thing it describes -- it's a one-word description of the thing.

Mostly agree, except that you make the use of the word too broad - so much so as to make it meaningless. I mean it more specifically as a word meant to replace a traditional concept, for the purpose of hiding something ugly, evil, and/or false. So while "going potty" qualifies as a euphemism, it is not one that I am concerned about it, because it is traditional, and it is not meant to deceive in its origins. I think it much harder to find words of traditional Christian origin that could qualify as euphemisms, none of which ever at any point aimed at deception. I do charge modern terms like "birth control" and "abortion" as being so aimed, precisely because they mask the nature of what is actually being done.

So obviously, we need to distinguish between terms and euphemisms; more exactly, which terms are actually used to mask the nature of the actual thought or deed.

[Avatar]

...something ugly, evil, and/or false.

Not necessarily. "Passed away" is a euphemism for dying, for example. Which is none of those things.

That said, in general I agree...euphemism exists to put a nicer face on something that's an (often) unpleasant reality.

This is not to say that they cannot have their place of course.

--A

[Vraith]

I do charge modern terms like "birth control" and "abortion" as being so aimed, precisely because they mask the nature of what is actually being done.

So obviously, we need to distinguish between terms and euphemisms; more exactly, which terms are actually used to mask the nature of the actual thought or deed.

Hmmm...most forms of "birth control" I suppose, should technically be called "fertilization preventers" or somesuch...but everyone knows that they don't prevent birth, they prevent pregnancy.
"Abortion" on the other hand, is perfectly accurate...a process is halted. It's only "murder" if one believes as you do as a base assumption.