On Language

[CommieBastard]

The way we often think about language is that it can hold content, meaning and/or a truth value (meaning it is either true or false).

However, when we point at a tree in order to draw someone's attention to it, we do not claim that our finger holds the content, meaning or truth of a tree. The finger simply points a person to the tree, allowing for them to come upon the concept of the tree for themselves.

Similarly, I would argue that language is like the finger, we use it to point towards concepts in the world and in our mind, but it does not hold the content or meaning of those concepts. It is a complex system of sounds that become signs for indicating.

Do we always think in language? Or can our thinking be done outside of language? In my opinion, the latter. We sometimes have concepts that we have no word for, and a word has to be invented. In my view our concepts churn away without words attached to them. We superimpose our system of language over these concepts, and that can in turn effect how our concepts develop, as the system of language will itself direct our thoughts into certain divisional and connective channels.

Language is also clumsy in what it does. Different people will see the signposts of language pointing in different directions, at different concepts. This is because our idea of what a word refers to is determined by our experience. A word can point at many different concepts all at once. This is why we will use multiple words, to set a context, so that hopefully we have enough sign posts pointing that the person reading or listening to our language will hit upon the concept we intend, and not another one.

What is more, people can create concepts entirely using language. Concepts that under inspection don't actually exist to us at all.

Take God for example. What exactly is the concept of God? It is hard to find a concept within our perceptual or conceptual world's which actually equates to a God. Sometimes religious people equate EVERYTHING that they perceive and conceive of with God. But then this makes 'God' a word no more meaningful than any other word which directs our attention to our entire perceptual and conceptual worlds.

What of Freedom then. Freedom can mean an awful lot of things to a lot of different people. There is Freedom of movement, Freedom to own material goods, Freedom to say that you are a pink giraffe, or Freedom to hit someone over the head with a blunt object. It can also mean something more. If Causal Determination is responsible for all of our actions, are we free? Do we ever have the freedom to decide who we are when making our free choices?
I would say that Freedom of that type is simply not possible. We cannot be free to decide for ourselves, we cannot be free of causal determination. The only other conceivable determinant for our actions would be randomness, and if randomness determines our actions we are no more free than if it's causal determination.

In this way, I would argue that the signposts of 'Freedom' and 'God' have been made such that they point to false concepts, concepts that under examination do not exist at all to us.

So what concepts CAN we point to with our language? What is there really there to talk about?

Or can we not point to anything? is language just an inverted pyramid of piffle, a structure we invented where there can be no structure?

[monkeydust]

Some pretty perceptive point Commiebastard

A lot of people might call this stuff irrelevant pedanticism, but I like it nonetheless so........


Similarly, I would argue that language is like the finger, we use it to point towards concepts in the world and in our mind, but it does not hold the content or meaning of those concepts. It is a complex system of sounds that become signs for indicating.


Yes.

Language is not a reflection of reality in objective form as most of us permissingly allow it to seem to be. It is rather a collection of convenient "labels" - used to represent objects, cognition, ideas, concepts and the like; what I call, collectively, "stuff".


Do we always think in language? Or can our thinking be done outside of language? In my opinion, the latter. We sometimes have concepts that we have no word for, and a word has to be invented. In my view our concepts churn away without words attached to them. We superimpose our system of language over these concepts, and that can in turn effect how our concepts develop, as the system of language will itself direct our thoughts into certain divisional and connective channels.


Very perceptive and valid point.

It's clear that we don't always think in language; that would be to imply that people did not think before language came about. Language is instead a tool to articulate our thoughts. By becoming familiar with a particular language, our thoughts in turn tend to be influenced by it - it's actually possible to make yourself feel happy by thinking happy thoughts, for instance.

This might be an argument for learning more than one language. In learning to think with more than one "set of tools" used to represent reality, we are able to be more detached from the subjectivity inherent in the language which we commonly use....Or perhaps not, I'm not really sure.



As for your later points........

The fact that abstract concepts such as freedom are essentially contested, equivocal and uncertain, does not mean that they do not exist at all. I wouldn't say, as you do, that freedom is a "false concept" because it is not absolute. There are certain "boundaries" of interpretation within which the concept of freedom can be said to exist. This is a problem with all abstract thinking - it subsists only in the realm of ideas, we cannot "point" to it physically, we can only guide someone to understand its meaning through language.




And another even more pedantic point from me.....

Of course, language has evolved over an immesurable stretch of time and spac. Words which we now use to represent objects and ideas may bare little or no relation to words used in languages infancy.

But suppose, as we cannot know the "first language" of man, that our language were the first to exist. If this were the case, our words for "tree", "chair" and "book" would have been at some point simply "invented" - a collection of syllables and sounds strung together to form some word.

Supposing this, what relation would the object or idea being described have to the word itself. Is there some underlying reason why a man would choose to describe a "tree" in the sounds that he does, or some reason why the sound of "chair" is used to describe that object? What I am trying to say is: are there sounds which inherently to us represent certain objects, and if so, does this make our languages in some way more coherent?

Of course, this may well all be balls.

[choekiewoekie]

I like your topic very much, it is a pity it hasnt been discussed here. I am gonna try, although my english might not be good enough for such an interesting subject.

Have you read Lacan? He is a philosopher with a great vision on language. More interesting in my opinion than wittgenstein.


This is something about child devolopment and language.

When you are born, you have no real language. In fact, there is no perception of such a thing as 'i'. I mean, a baby does not know he is a person. A baby can look at his toes without knowing they belong to him, as to a person as a whole.
Only when he gets older, he gets a perception of the I. Than he knows all his body parts belong to him. At that point, he realises that when there is something as I, there must be someting as Others. At that point a baby starts crying when it sees an unfamiliar face.
When sometings as The Other comes along, it introduces him to the world. This introducing to the world is being done by language.
Language makes clear there is a world, with a mother and a father (or another person to raise a baby, i suggest hopefully). By language a child learns it has an identity. Look when a father stands in front of the mirror and tells a baby "Look, that is you. That is NNN (name)!" His identity gets presented by an image and by language. By giving a child language you present an order. A symbolic order.
With getting a language, you are being placed in a tradition, a culture. With the language you stand on the shoulders of the generation before. A child gets the posibility to start all over again, it gets a fresh start. But no way it can start over really free, a child always stands in a tradition or cultur from the generation before. Therefor there is a symbolic order, presented by language.

But when you get older, a problem rises. You can talk about yourself, that is correct. You do this with words. But at some time you realise your words can not really representate what you are. You know that underneith those words there is more. But when you start to describe, you are being captured by words again.
Language therefor will never bring true satisfaction. You can talk about youself as about a subject, but the I underneith it, you will never really reach by language.
There will always be a frustration. ( And with frustation there is always a desire.)



In a few words:
As a child you get the language, and with the language you get a place in the symbolic order. But language will never really satisfy you, it is not enough and therefor there is frustration. And therefor there is desire.

This is all told by Lacan, it was not my idea.


But the question of language is even far more complicated than this i believe. But maybe some other time....

[seraphim]

some very good points raised. Its my oppinion that language is a hinderence rather than a help with communicating. Humans use 1/8th of their brains, I believe that as language developed we began to lose the 'knowledge' which governs other theoretical functions of the brain (telepathy, e.s.p etc.) as language developed so those other functions although more efficient took a back seat. As language became more widely used evoloution began to remove the knowledge of those other functions from our brains.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
Do we always think in language? Or can our thinking be done outside of language? In my opinion, the latter. We sometimes have concepts that we have no word for, and a word has to be invented.

I disagree -- I don't believe that it's possible to think coherently without language.

The reason we invent a new word to describe/designate something is because we want a "short" way to say something that would take a very large number of other words to accomplish the same task.

We could, in principle, walk around saying "large, tall plant which is useful for food and building material, etc., etc., etc."

It's easier to say "tree".

And even then, we still have to be more specific...an "apple tree" is good for food, a "pine tree" is good for building things, etc.

The more complex the phenomenon we're trying to describe, the more words we need...and the more we resort to creating new words to sum up this complexity.

And some things are so complex that even words fail us -- quantum reality can really only be described mathematically...though you can use a large number of ordinary words to give a "feel" for "what it's like".


What is more, people can create concepts entirely using language. Concepts that under inspection don't actually exist to us at all.

True. But I don't think such concepts "fall out of the sky"...they represent some attempt (however ill-informed) to explain/designate some aspect of reality.

Behind the word "god" is a search for a plausible explanation of why there is "something" and not "nothing". Every human society apparently has a "creation myth" of some kind.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

However, when we point at a tree in order to draw someone's attention to it, we do not claim that our finger holds the content, meaning or truth of a tree. The finger simply points a person to the tree, allowing for them to come upon the concept of the tree for themselves.

Similarly, I would argue that language is like the finger, we use it to point towards concepts in the world and in our mind, but it does not hold the content or meaning of those concepts. It is a complex system of sounds that become signs for indicating.


I'm not convinced by this part.

The diffirence between the use of a finger and language is, for me, this.

What if you wished to explain what a tree was to a person who had never seen a tree without a tree in sight, or a blind person? It would not suffice to "indicate" a tree using language or a finger, instead you would have to deploy other meanings and terms to describe a "tree". For instance, you might say they are "tall" and have "green leaves", these are the "contents" of a tree. Therefore, language for me is a tool of objectively describing content. Importantly, these "contents" may indicate "a tree" but they also exist independently of it. Therefore, language is fundamentally diffirent because it can indicate contents in the abstract and how they relate to and appear this other thing called a tree.

Ultimately, as a materialist, I have to hold that these "contents" do hold objective truth outside of our perception of them. Therefore, I have to criticise this "allowing for them to come upon the concept of the tree for themselves" because it sounds completely post-modern.

[CommieBastard]

I disagree -- I don't believe that it's possible to think coherently without language.

When you make an inference between some different concepts, do you have to be thinking "i am making an inference here"? I think we think without using language all the time, perfectly coherently. We often make inferences, we often have very complex and coherent modes of thought, but we don't apply words to the process or why it was done until afterwards.

I would be willing to accept that this kind of thought isn't entirely coherent, but i would say it is the vast majority of that body of thought previously considered to be coherent and rational.


The reason we invent a new word to describe/designate something is because we want a "short" way to say something that would take a very large number of other words to accomplish the same task.

We could, in principle, walk around saying "large, tall plant which is useful for food and building material, etc., etc., etc."

It's easier to say "tree".

And even then, we still have to be more specific...an "apple tree" is good for food, a "pine tree" is good for building things, etc.

The more complex the phenomenon we're trying to describe, the more words we need...and the more we resort to creating new words to sum up this complexity.

And some things are so complex that even words fail us -- quantum reality can really only be described mathematically...though you can use a large number of ordinary words to give a "feel" for "what it's like".

Okay, consider the time when language was first emerging. We didn't have words for a lot of things. We couldn't sum up some objects, and we couldnt explain them in longer terms either. We still had the concept before we had the language, and we could still react to the concept.

The words to explain things are not all already out there in the World, it may feel like it because we at this time have a language which has the capability to cover most of the concepts, and for a lot of the concepts we get introduced to them via the language which designates them.


True. But I don't think such concepts "fall out of the sky"...they represent some attempt (however ill-informed) to explain/designate some aspect of reality.

I entirely agree, I never intended to suggest that they do just "fall out of the sky".
Their intentional creation does not vindicate them though. If anything, it makes them all the more insidious. It is very common for people who do not believe in concepts (which are ultimately false) to appeal to these concepts when attempting to manipulate others. This is how the majority of politics and advertising works these days.


What if you wished to explain what a tree was to a person who had never seen a tree without a tree in sight, or a blind person? It would not suffice to "indicate" a tree using language or a finger, instead you would have to deploy other meanings and terms to describe a "tree". For instance, you might say they are "tall" and have "green leaves", these are the "contents" of a tree. Therefore, language for me is a tool of objectively describing content. Importantly, these "contents" may indicate "a tree" but they also exist independently of it. Therefore, language is fundamentally diffirent because it can indicate contents in the abstract and how they relate to and appear this other thing called a tree.

Ultimately, as a materialist, I have to hold that these "contents" do hold objective truth outside of our perception of them. Therefore, I have to criticise this "allowing for them to come upon the concept of the tree for themselves" because it sounds completely post-modern.

If you wish to express what a tree is to a person who has never seen the tree, or who is blind, then the account i gave still stands.
When you use words to 'describe' the specific features of the tree you are simply using the words to point to conceptual objects, as opposed to perceptual ones.
You want to point out the overall 'tree' concept, so you use the word 'tall' which points, for the listener, to all of the other objects they've experienced to which the word 'tall' has been applied (and also to any objects that they've applied the word to, using inference to give significance to similarities between the two objects). So using memories and concepts the person already has we can direct them to an overall concept of the 'tree'. However, considering that the person will be limited in their experiences, it can only resemble a 'tree' insofar as they have experienced things which in their parts resemble the 'tree'.

The way in which language is different to the pointing finger is that it itself exists within the conceptual world, and can therefore be used to indicate objects in the conceptual world, whilst fingers live in our perceptual world.
I was at no point attempting to say that language is in it's entirety the same as the 'pointing finger', but using the 'pointing finger' as an example of the ways in which i think language works, in order to direct you to those features of the 'pointing finger' that i considered significantly similar.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
When you make an inference between some different concepts, do you have to be thinking "I am making an inference here"? I think we think without using language all the time, perfectly coherently. We often make inferences, we often have very complex and coherent modes of thought, but we don't apply words to the process or why it was done until afterwards.

I would be willing to accept that this kind of thought isn't entirely coherent, but I would say it is the vast majority of that body of thought previously considered to be coherent and rational.

Well, without specifics, it's hard to speak of "the vast majority".

But I think your view is misleading. As we mature and have thought about certain things many times, we develop "mental hot keys"...instead of plodding through "I am making an inference...", we complete that step "without having to think about it".

Nevertheless, if it were possible to "slow down time" and examine the chain of thought in detail, I think the language would be there.

Indeed, I suspect that such "mental hot keys" -- developed in the interests of efficiency -- actually limit our thinking a good deal.

We often jump from A to B so quickly that the possibilities of C are never considered at all. When we tell ourselves to "think outside the box", that's a conscious attempt to disable our "mental hot keys".


Okay, consider the time when language was first emerging. We didn't have words for a lot of things. We couldn't sum up some objects, and we couldn't explain them in longer terms either. We still had the concept before we had the language, and we could still react to the concept.

Well, some small-brained primates have two different "alarm calls" -- one indicating danger from above (eagles) and one indicating danger from below (snakes).

But even that, it seems to me, is a "proto-language"...it makes a clear distinction between two kinds of dangers.

Early modern humans were more observant than their anthropoid ancestors and needed words to describe what they saw. It's something of a mystery, I suppose, just how this was done. You see something new or odd; you have a picture of it in your mind; you go back and try to explain what you saw to others of your small tribe...probably not very successfully. But when several members of your small tribe have seen it, then you can agree on a word for it.

If you like, I suppose it could be said that before we had words, we "thought" in pictures. (Some contend that language was initially a substitute for grooming.)

But language is so useful that I imagine that as soon as the capacity was there, it was put to use very quickly...perhaps within one or two generations. People who could think coherently (however primitive their knowledge) would have a huge reproductive advantage over those who did not or could not.

Some have also argued that we have an "unconscious mind" that "thinks in the background" (with or without language). When faced with an intractable problem, we "sleep on it" and wake up with (on occasion) a "brilliant solution". This is attributed to that "unconscious mind" thinking over the problem while we're asleep.

I don't know that anyone has ever attempted to gather direct evidence to support this hypothesis (it would be a difficult problem in itself).

But I'm pretty skeptical; simply because we go to sleep doesn't mean our ordinary mind "shuts down"...what it mostly does is stop paying attention to most external sensory stimulants. It may still be "beavering away" at matters that are of serious concern to us -- and I see no reason why it wouldn't use a tool as useful as language to do so. When we awaken with our "brilliant solution"...it's in the form of the language that we normally think in, isn't it?

Of course, I'm assuming a healthy brain that functions normally...there's no telling what happens when people are drunk, high, or suffer from some kind of organic malfunction of the brain -- they can wake up and tell you about the nice chat they had with "Jesus" or what kind of silverware pattern they use in "Heaven".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

You say that all coherent thought is in language. Yet that would seem to be making the claim that a creature who is incapable of language is incapable of coherent thought. Would you say that when an animal displays problem solving skills they are necesarily thinking in language?

You said that making a distinction is to you using 'proto-language'. You could argue that the squirrel is using a 'proto-language' in order to work out how to get the nuts. However, if you did so then what you mean by language (seemingly an ability to make distinctions from our perceptual reality, and make connections in our mind between these distinctions) is pretty much what i mean by concept, and our argument is purely one of terminology.