Inner thought space

[Post-Something]

Do we have inner thought spaces that we can retreat into to think about the world? In the Cartesian sense?

And

To what degree does language dominate the way we think?

[Anaximander]

Frontal lobe?

We can think in images too, but often times they are inexpressible through the medium of language, and if they are, they are often unclear. It comes down to whether language has a negative role in thought, i.e., it limits what can be thought and articulated, or whether it has a positive role and is in part responsible for multitudinous forms of thought.

I'm no philosopher, though, so I really have no idea.

[mel]

Do we have inner thought spaces that we can retreat into to think about the world? In the Cartesian sense?

And

To what degree does language dominate the way we think?

I don't think the question you've asked is really answerable. Consciousness is a phenomena so ridiculously difficult to attempt to explain or even understand that to make any blanket claims about it would be borderline ridiculous.

That being said, I tend to reject any Cartesian dualisms as a matter of course. The idea that the mind is a distinctly separate entity from the brain appears to me to be utter lunacy, so if that's what you're asking, then I'd have to say that no: there is no "substance" known as the mind which is capable of retreating from the world into its own little "space", but I don't have a very good argument against this idea save that there's literally no evidence which could either support or deny such a claim.

I think language, more or less, entirely dominates the way we think. We tend to think in language (and the thinking we do in pictures relatively rarely is thinking which is productive) and so to suggest that the language we think in does not entirely dominate the sorts of thoughts which we're capable of having would be naive.

[thesmokingfrog]

Well, I belive that the mind and the brain are distinct (but not separate) entities, much like the difference between having dinner and digesting. The mind is about the behavioural relation with the envyroment. The brain is just the structure that makes it possible.
Language is then the specifically human behavioural relation to the envyroment, so is not that language limits us, is just what being human is all about (it could be different, we would then be a different specie).
So, can you retreat to your own private space? i'd say that the distinction of inside and outside spaces are virtual, because mind is essentially relational, but you sure can abstract about a situation and just think about 'something else' (although such an abstraction is still relational).
I'd say that Maturana & Varela have alrady solved this problem :P:
MATURANA, Humberto R.
The mind is not in the head, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, Vol. 8, no. 4 (October 1985)
or just check enolagaia.
saludos...

[AmongTheWeeds]

Do we have inner thought spaces that we can retreat into to think about the world? In the Cartesian sense?

And

To what degree does language dominate the way we think?

It's hard for me to address your first question, as I don't know much about the Cartesian argument in regard to our mind...

But I feel as though language completely dominates the way we think, and is really quite limiting.

For example, words can definite the ways in which we categorize and thus think about other species. If our language allows us to differentiate between different types of elk, based on culture-specific words that identify them on fur length and color, horn characteristics, and other physical traits, and we also identify different ways in which these greatly specified elk can be "used" (sorry), then we would have a vastly different way of thinking about this animal than those whose language simply refers to them as "elk".

This is probably similar to someone who is trying to talk about the way something tastes, or perhaps describe the way a sunset looked, but is unable to do so to the degree they would prefer because they lack the vocabulary. We might not even notice different shades of colors if we haven't ever thought to differentiate between then, or if our language is unable to provide us with the proper terminology.

Also, I think that if our language is laced with terms that reflect general negatives but are also used to refer to members of our society, then this may impact the way we think about those people.

[AmongTheWeeds]

We can think in images too, but often times they are inexpressible through the medium of language, and if they are, they are often unclear. It comes down to whether language has a negative role in thought, i.e., it limits what can be thought and articulated, or whether it has a positive role and is in part responsible for multitudinous forms of thought.


Is it not possible that language has both a negative and positive role in thought?

It will probably vary greatly on individual experience, education, etc, but I think that, at least to some degree, we can only think in terms of our language - see my previous post - but at the same time we are constantly able to expand the way in which we think by exposing ourselves to new words, ideas, thoughts...

I guess I think of it as a sort of circle, all of which inside we are capable of expressing, but some of us are constantly pushing the borders further and further outward to encompass an ever-expanding amount of territory. As a collective, our ability to do so is always growing.

Our difficulties with expressing what we are "seeing" when we think in images may also be due to our lack of everyday conversation revolving truly robust and strikingly descriptive language. I feel like, at least in America, it is unusual to really get into subject matter on a regular basis in which we would be using the sort of vocabulary that would allow us to really express our inner-most thoughts.

What if we are driving with a friend, and a sudden smell makes us think of a distant memory... and caught up in this pleasant nostalgia, we wish to share this feeling with our friend. It's almost always impossible to really share this feeling because we can't possibly describe it (and because the experience is so intensely personal), and while we may be certain that somewhere in their mind they would have some sort of similar memory that invokes such pleasantness, it's so hard to express.

Maybe my example is greatly flawed though because of the connection between expression of the image and the feeling it is associated with.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades tempted to think along the above traditional lines might find these suitably corrective:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousness-and-passage-t100438/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

Or, if you are brave enough:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm