Does Language restrict your thoughts?

[Forward Union]

Often, I have trailed off into a blizzard of ideas, starting with a common thought and taking it to unusual levels. Only to find that when I try to translate my Ideas to English, it doesn't quite work.

Or to put it simply, I cannot express my ideas with language. I can't even summarise them in my own head, and thus I cannot analyse them in English, and this stops me thinking. I just automatically shut down and think about something else.

Does this ever happen to you? And if not, think about it logically, language has its limits, is it possible that the very structure of mainstream languages oppresses our creative thoughts?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 26 2005, 02:15 PM
...is it possible that the very structure of mainstream languages oppresses our creative thoughts?
Very true. The language is often quite assumptive, capitalistic, dogmatic and religious, even carrying over feudalistic tones... need I say more?

I suspect people internalize this from language and carry it into social practice with these "subliminally" spoken social guidelines in mind. This is why our thoughts can be limited (often denial), because we are social animals, it is in our nature to cooperate with our society at all costs.

From this I have come to the theory that leftists, aside from generally being more empathetic, are also more independent of society (possibly also alienated) and for some reason (nature/nurture) function beyond the "acceptable" parameters for social indignation.

Oh, and this is linguistics (science) so I'm moving it to S&E

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 26 2005, 08:15 PM
Often, I have trailed off into a blizzard of ideas, starting with a common thought and taking it to unusual levels. Only to find that when I try to translate my Ideas to English, it doesn't quite work.

Or to put it simply, I cannot express my ideas with language. I can't even summarise them in my own head, and thus I cannot analyse them in English, and this stops me thinking. I just automatically shut down and think about something else.

Does this ever happen to you? And if not, think about it logically, language has its limits, is it possible that the very structure of mainstream languages oppresses our creative thoughts?
Language is a quick and easy method of conveying ideas, but it can be very imprecise - many mathematical concepts are difficult to convey in a spoken language.

This is not to say that language limits us, but it is to say that language has it's limits - some of the more esoteric aspects of quantum theory are very difficult to put across in words, mainly because there is no analagous phenomenon in macroscopic reality.

For instance, when most people mentalise the concept of "nothing" they imagine an empty space, possibly even a vacuum. But a vacuum is not truly nothing, either - there is activity, there is something, going on at the planck level.

But language also allows us to label things we don't truly understand or find difficult or even impossible to mentalise. Infinity is an example. Infinity, true infinity is a concept impossible to comprehend, but language allows us to label it, to categorise it, and to describe it without truly "knowing" what it is.
Looking at fractals or trying to imagine the size of the universe will give you a good idea of infinity if not a true overall picture.

Put simply, the limitations of human language represent, in a roundabout fashion, the limitations of the human mind to fully realise concepts without resorting to non-language abstractions.

[RedStarOverChina]

Language is always the imperfect immitation of reality. For example, paradoxes are one of the defects of all languages. Paradoxes dont exist in reality.

True materialists abolish language (at least temporarily) and common sense (which is rarely common) in their thinking. Materialists see the things as they are, without mixing reality with human prejudice brought along by languages and common sense.

[Zingu]

Ever read Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man"? He talks about how language becomes alienated in capitalism; where people use words like "freedom" only to describe their primary functions.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:08 PM
Put simply, the limitations of human language represent, in a roundabout fashion, the limitations of the human mind to fully realise concepts without resorting to non-language abstractions.
Agreed. But there are cases where certain languages act more precisely than others. Take two Examples, English and Inuit.

In English there are only a one word for snow, Snow. In Inuit there are 42. In English we must add things to our noun to distinguish it, like "Darker snow" "Lighter snow" "Rocky Snow" "Tough snow" "soft snow" etc.

And, as you stated, Ideas like the quantum theory are tough to put across in words. And perhaps for people listening, tough to grasp. Language clearly limits us. And yet in some cases (like infinity) allows us to label things that we can't actually conceptualise.

Yet, when exploring philosophical ideas, I have found myself thinking things that I cannot express in words. Now, im fairly sure this isn't due to a lack of vocabulary, as I do sufficiently well in my English Literature class, I just can't communicate my thoughts. It's like trying to describe a colour to someone, it can't be done.

Thoughts are not quantifiable!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yet, when exploring philosophical ideas, I have found myself thinking things that I cannot express in words. Now, im fairly sure this isn't due to a lack of vocabulary, as I do sufficiently well in my English Literature class, I just can't communicate my thoughts. It's like trying to describe a colour to someone, it can't be done.

You could be a master of the English language and still have difficulty transmitting ideas because of the limitations of the language itself - you may need words that don't exist to describe your concepts in a spoken language, simply because nobody who speaks your language has thought of your concept.
Colours can be described mathematically - they can be given an RGB value, for example, or their wavelengths can be described. But the only way you can "experience" the color blue is for you to see it for yourself.


Thoughts are not quantifiable!

At least, not yet. I think the day when blind people can truly know colours is the day we develop direct neural interfaces.

[Che NJ]

This happens to me all of the time, but I don't think it is very restrictive. Language is the only way we can communicate ideas, and I don't think I could come up with something better. It is true that you can't always express things in words, but in many cases, it can act as a thought organizer, not restrictor especially in early childhood. We always think outside of language, we need to. we just need language to share our ideas.

[Fascist-Hunter]

In English there are only a one word for snow, Snow. In Inuit there are 42. In English we must add things to our noun to distinguish it, like "Darker snow" "Lighter snow" "Rocky Snow" "Tough snow" "soft snow" etc.

thats true, but you should be aware of the fact that inuit people might need more words to describe several types of snow. it concerns their daily life. i have once heard that there are 15 hawaiian words for all kind of different rain. in western europe the weather is usually not such a big topic.

it took me a few years (!!!) to understand that the english sentences like "one thousand more fools are born every day" and "one thousand more fools are being born every day" are different. also simple sentences like "my mother stopped to talk to the neighbour" and "my mother stopped talking to the neighbour" cannot be fully understood by non-native speakers. but i still think that the easiest solution would be to keep english as the world language. it might not be easy to learn for everyone but it seems to be the language which makes the most sense and which can be used to express several things in a logical way.

it would be great to find a way to get the "pictures" out of your head into another persons head in order to show your feelings etc. but i think we'll have to wait a few hundred years for that to be possible.

[RedStarOverChina]

it(ENGLISH) seems to be the language which makes the most sense

thats rather detestable...

You think that way because 1.You dont know much about other languages; 2. You have never been able to truly understand the limitations language in ur thinking.

[Fascist-Hunter]

hm, i might not know every languagee on this planet, but i know german, english, french, latin and ancient greek. if you compare these languages you will soon find out that english is the most logical. that doesn't mean that it is simple to learn (as you see i still make a lot of grammatical mistakes), it just means that there are logical rules and a deeper inner logic behind the structures which you won't find for example in german or latin.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:52 PM

it(ENGLISH) seems to be the language which makes the most sense

thats rather detestable...

You think that way because 1.You dont know much about other languages; 2. You have never been able to truly understand the limitations language in ur thinking.
He made it quite clear that english was not his first language to begin with; you should really read the whole post.

[Gnosis]

Yes, we are limited by our language first and second by our ability to understand and apply that language to our thoughts and experiences.
My advice: Learn as many words as you can and don't feel like you can't make up your own meanings or even your own language.
If there is a thought which you feel you must expand upon, then do so by ny means.
Remember, artwork and poetry are a language of their own.

By nature, language can be manipulated very easily.

You can either use it to your own advantage, or if you don't understand it, it can be used to take advantage of you.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:23 PM



you may need words that don't exist to describe your concepts in a spoken language, simply because nobody who speaks your language has thought of your concept.

Its not impossible to express 'my' ideas, but, impossible to do so with my native tongue (and presumable all other Latin based languages). I have often attempted to try so through Art, and often I have ended up with some very peculiar abstract work, that only I can really understand. A mix of lines, shades, and occasionally some regular forms, darting and crossing the page. Maybe I'll scan one for you.


Colours can be described mathematically - they can be given an RGB value, for example,

Ok, imagine the only thing I can see is this monitor, and my monitor, is black and white. It has always been black and white. Put simply, I have never seen a colour.
Please describe to me what this looks like.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its not impossible to express 'my' ideas, but, impossible to do so with my native tongue (and presumable all other Latin based languages). I have often attempted to try so through Art, and often I have ended up with some very peculiar abstract work, that only I can really understand. A mix of lines, shades, and occasionally some regular forms, darting and crossing the page. Maybe I'll scan one for you.

Please do.


Please describe to me what this looks like.

0 255 0 :P

The trouble is that colour doesn't really exist - it's just the way our eyes react to different wavelengths of visible light.

[slim]

Language is part of communication. 90% of communication is body language leaving the other ten percent to speech and telepathy.

It is odd. I always find myself in trouble for words in my language so a lot of the time i make different kinds of grunts or make a word out of two. I like to use body language more though because it can convey exact emotions.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 26 2005, 08:15 PM
Often, I have trailed off into a blizzard of ideas, starting with a common thought and taking it to unusual levels. Only to find that when I try to translate my Ideas to English, it doesn't quite work.

Or to put it simply, I cannot express my ideas with language. I can't even summarise them in my own head, and thus I cannot analyse them in English, and this stops me thinking. I just automatically shut down and think about something else.

Does this ever happen to you? And if not, think about it logically, language has its limits, is it possible that the very structure of mainstream languages oppresses our creative thoughts?
This happens to me all the....what were we talking about?

[Redmau5]

It happens to me alot as well. It often occurs when I'm in an examination and I completely understand the question in my head although I can't really express myself well on the paper.

I often get myself into trouble when I'm trying to explain something and it comes out wrong because I can't find the right words to express myself.

[bulrog]

When I was asked in History class to give a reason why the Allies should have checked Hitler when he remilitarised the Rhineland, I said they should have acted because Hitler gained a lot more popularity in Germany and became more ''cocky'' (was looking for confident/ambitious/daring, but no, i said cocky).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:48 PM
Language is part of communication. 90% of communication is body language leaving the other ten percent to speech and telepathy.

Telepathy?! This is Science & Environment, not Pseudoscience & Environment.

[bed_of_nails]

Language does limit your mental capabilities in some ways. When one thinks, they think in the primary language(s) that they speak. Most people can only think of something if they can put a name to it or its parts.

[pedro san pedro]

sometimes i'll be thinking of two different but related things, but will be unable to explain them to anyone else because to understand 1 you need to understand the other, and vice versa. it's really really frustrating.

i also get very jealous of people that have taken the time to learn another language - i always find it amazing when i see to non-native english speakers from different countries conversing in english!

i also remember being told about german word - which i cant recall - that has no equivilent in english - and takes pages and pages of text to explain in english!


but i still think that the easiest solution would be to keep english as the world language. it might not be easy to learn for everyone but it seems to be the language which makes the most sense and which can be used to express several things in a logical way

its also the language that is spoken in the most places and that the most people are learning - it'ld make no sense to try to switch over to a different 'global' language



In English there are only a one word for snow, Snow. In Inuit there are 42. In English we must add things to our noun to distinguish it, like "Darker snow" "Lighter snow" "Rocky Snow" "Tough snow" "soft snow" etc.

i doubt most english speakers would be able to see the difference between the 42 different types of snow.

"hey, it's snow18ing!"

"don't be a fool! that's obviously snow 22!"

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 28 2005, 11:33 PM
i also remember being told about german word - which i cant recall - that has no equivilent in english - and takes pages and pages of text to explain in english!
Yeah, German has long compound words. Also, my brother was telling me that there is no Japanese equivalent of "soul" (he's lived in Japan for a few years).

This thread is getting sad... I was hoping to discuss the core issue brought up but no one has responded to my initial post either :(

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Hardly; without language, there is no thought. We all have moments wherein we are at a loss for words, but that is borne of our own temporary inability to articulate - not the fault of of our language. I, personally, have never had a sober thought that I could not relate to others after enough meditation. The English language (like all others) may have its shortcomings, but cogitative thought is a creation of its precursor: language.

That said, we do experience certain sensations which seem ineffable, but that is why we have the mediums of poetry and art. Nothing is absolutely untellable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Sep 29 2005, 08:47 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Sep 29 2005, 08:47 PM)
pedro san [email protected] 28 2005, 11:33 PM
i also remember being told about german word - which i cant recall - that has no equivilent in english - and takes pages and pages of text to explain in english!
Yeah, German has long compound words. Also, my brother was telling me that there is no Japanese equivalent of "soul" (he's lived in Japan for a few years).

This thread is getting sad... I was hoping to discuss the core issue brought up but no one has responded to my initial post either :( [/b]
There wasn't a question in your post. But I will answer what appears to be the thrust of your post.

No, I don't believe that one's language controls one's thoughts to the extant you seem to believe. Few people have thought to use language as a mind control tool until recently. Sure, the church resisted the printing of the Bible in English, but that was a block on knowledge, not an attempt to control people through their speech.

If people want to use words, they will use them, and simply banning them does not work.

True, the use of a language can reflect the mindset of the one speaking it, but that's all it does - we control language, not the other way round.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:27 PM
There wasn't a question in your post. But I will answer what appears to be the thrust of your post.
I said "respond," but thanks. I tend to respond to many non-questions.


No, I don't believe that one's language controls one's thoughts to the extant you seem to believe.

Great; now we can debate this. I didn't say however that it was mind control just that language is internalized so people tend to develop in relation to certain cultural standards and are rather self-defined by their culture as it is expressed in language.


Few people have thought to use language as a mind control tool until recently.

I completely disagree. "Mind control" is ancient and has been something of an art of ruling classes, monarchies, etc. The propaganda of ruling culture and form has been completely driven into the minds of the workers, as for them to completely forsake their own interests and live vicariously through their rulers, begging for scraps.


Sure, the church resisted the printing of the Bible in English, but that was a block on knowledge, not an attempt to control people through their speech.

It was very much an attempt to control people through language. Till the point print emerged with public literacy, the interpretation of text was reliant on a sort of literary cast that generally pledged allegiance to the rulers. Rulers don't want you to have the power to seek the source of language passed down or you might find their edicts self-serving and destructive. You can only control people through language so long as authority is not criticized and today that battle still rages, over political propaganda.


If people want to use words, they will use them, and simply banning them does not work.

How is this relevant? :unsure:


True, the use of a language can reflect the mindset of the one speaking it, but that's all it does

You are missing the implication here. If everyone or at least a majority has this "mindset," this creates an entire culture devoted to that "mindset" and children are brainwashed as a fact of cultural life.


we control language, not the other way round.

We control the means of production as well and in turn, they control us; just like language.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Great; now we can debate this. I didn't say however that it was mind control just that language is internalized so people tend to develop in relation to certain cultural standards and are rather self-defined by their culture as it is expressed in language.

What do you mean by "internalised" in this instance?


I completely disagree. "Mind control" is ancient and has been something of an art of ruling classes, monarchies, etc. The propaganda of ruling culture and form has been completely driven into the minds of the workers, as for them to completely forsake their own interests and live vicariously through their rulers, begging for scraps.

Propaganda certainly precedes the 20th century, but using language as a propoganda tool did not arise consciously until then - George Orwell certainly pointed that out in 1984.


It was very much an attempt to control people through language. Till the point print emerged with public literacy, the interpretation of text was reliant on a sort of literary cast that generally pledged allegiance to the rulers. Rulers don't want you to have the power to seek the source of language passed down or you might find their edicts self-serving and destructive. You can only control people through language so long as authority is not criticized and today that battle still rages, over political propaganda.

You place too much forethought in the minds of medieval kings. I think it was more a case of "god says I'm the rightful ruler and if you disagree, you're a heretic and should burn - god says so" Circular reasoning, but that was during less reasonable times.


How is this relevant? :unsure:

My point is that like most propaganda tools, language control is a haphazard and unreliable method, and thus isn't the deadly aegis you seem to think it is.


You are missing the implication here. If everyone or at least a majority has this "mindset," this creates an entire culture devoted to that "mindset" and children are brainwashed as a fact of cultural life.

I'm afraid that's sort of unavoidable - nobody is born and lives in a culture without recieving some sort of imprint from that culture.
Even "be an individual" culture does that, even if the only imprint is "be an individual".

[tantric]

dialogue with a euroamerican:

tantric: "what color are you?"

EA: "white"

tantric: "if i take your arm to Home Despot and have the color matched and then paint it on a wall, what color is the wall?"

EA: "what?"

tantric: "nevermind. what color is milk?"

EA: "white"

tantric: "are you milk colored, or is milk you-colored?"

EA: "what?"

tantric: "nevermind. if a white woman has a baby with a black man, what color is it?"

EA: "black"

tantric: "if a black woman has a baby with a white man, what color is it?"

EA: "black"

tantric: "so a white woman can have a black baby, but a black woman can't have a white baby?"

EA: "what?"

on the whole, i would say YES. the english language does not have a word for the skin color of northern europeans, ie, ENGLISH SPEAKERS. race is primarily a linguistic construction.

offwhite (adj): the skin tone predominately found in persons of northern european descent. see also: offblack, offyellow, offred.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"White" is merely a shorthand. It's a bit of a mouthful to say "Northern European with possibly minor non-european characteristics and visually non-discernable non-european ancestry.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion+Sep 29 2005, 10:59 PM--> (NoXion @ Sep 29 2005, 10:59 PM)
Great; now we can debate this. I didn't say however that it was mind control just that language is internalized so people tend to develop in relation to certain cultural standards and are rather self-defined by their culture as it is expressed in language.

What do you mean by "internalised" in this instance?[/b]

The definition
in•ter•nal•ize (ĭn-tûr'nə-līz')
tr.v., -ized, -iz•ing, -iz•es.

1. To make internal, personal, or subjective: “Protean man internalizes the longing for immortality through an ongoing process of death and rebirth within himself” (Henry S. Resnik).
2. To take in and make an integral part of one's attitudes or beliefs: had internalized the cultural values of the Poles after a year of living in Warsaw.



I completely disagree. "Mind control" is ancient and has been something of an art of ruling classes, monarchies, etc. The propaganda of ruling culture and form has been completely driven into the minds of the workers, as for them to completely forsake their own interests and live vicariously through their rulers, begging for scraps.

Propaganda certainly precedes the 20th century, but using language as a propoganda tool did not arise consciously until then - George Orwell certainly pointed that out in 1984.

Right but there was no need to consciously use propaganda, that was just an eventuality of ruling class predatory development <_<



It was very much an attempt to control people through language. Till the point print emerged with public literacy, the interpretation of text was reliant on a sort of literary cast that generally pledged allegiance to the rulers. Rulers don&#39;t want you to have the power to seek the source of language passed down or you might find their edicts self-serving and destructive. You can only control people through language so long as authority is not criticized and today that battle still rages, over political propaganda.

You place too much forethought in the minds of medieval kings. I think it was more a case of "god says I&#39;m the rightful ruler and if you disagree, you&#39;re a heretic and should burn - god says so" Circular reasoning, but that was during less reasonable times.

In religious phrasing or not, these rulers didn&#39;t want the "common people" to have access to "their god," this was an effort to keep power, through controlling language.



How is this relevant? :unsure:

My point is that like most propaganda tools, language control is a haphazard and unreliable method, and thus isn&#39;t the deadly aegis you seem to think it is.

Really? Well how do you think the ruling class has survived the "information age?" Surely this isn&#39;t through coercion alone. Look at the reactionary following the ruling class has; can you tell me that they would be brainwashed if the ruling class haden&#39;t regulated language?



You are missing the implication here. If everyone or at least a majority has this "mindset," this creates an entire culture devoted to that "mindset" and children are brainwashed as a fact of cultural life.

I&#39;m afraid that&#39;s sort of unavoidable - nobody is born and lives in a culture without recieving some sort of imprint from that culture.
Even "be an individual" culture does that, even if the only imprint is "be an individual".

That wasn&#39;t mp point either. Cultural socialization and brain-washing are two very different processes. Children can be taught cultural values without being indoctrinated. Indoctrination is a sign of reactionary ideology, as with a logical thought-line, people can just make sense out of available information and are not restricted by inane social standards.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Great; now we can debate this. I didn&#39;t say however that it was mind control just that language is internalized so people tend to develop in relation to certain cultural standards and are rather self-defined by their culture as it is expressed in language.

Well in the Western world at least, the cultural waters are being muddied slightly. Things like high-speed internet connections will only accelerate this.


In religious phrasing or not, these rulers didn&#39;t want the "common people" to have access to "their god," this was an effort to keep power, through controlling language.

Denying the commoners English translations of the Bible does not equate to controlling language, it equates to controlling knowledge - By keeping knowledge in a language unknown to commoners, they controlled information.
Controlling language would be altering the very fabric of knowledge to suggest that those who do not fall in line with doctrine are wrong and evil.
For example, the English word "atheism" has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:

Atheism
Noun.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
3. Godlessness; immorality.

This represents an example of language control. Disallowing people from reading the Bible to see for themselves just how much of a dick God is is control of information.


Really? Well how do you think the ruling class has survived the "information age?" Surely this isn&#39;t through coercion alone. Look at the reactionary following the ruling class has; can you tell me that they would be brainwashed if the ruling class haden&#39;t regulated language?

Until recently the Internet wasn&#39;t a very mainstream thing - IMO it remains to be seen as to it&#39;s effect on capitalist hegemony.
But in any case, the internet is more of a representative sample of people&#39;s views.
I think the key to people&#39;s perception of the world they live in is during the primary and early secondary school stage of a person&#39;s life, something that the ruling class have a firm grip on.



That wasn&#39;t mp point either. Cultural socialization and brain-washing are two very different processes. Children can be taught cultural values without being indoctrinated. Indoctrination is a sign of reactionary ideology, as with a logical thought-line, people can just make sense out of available information and are not restricted by inane social standards.

But how does one differentiate between socialisation and the more subtle and maybe even unintentional forms of brainwashing of today?

[bezdomni]

The arguement that humans have limited cognitive ability has been used against materialists for decades. Read "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel, if you have time to read a twisted, repetitive and strange essay,

[More Fire for the People]

In my opinion, language does not restrict primitive thought as in the recognization of objects and persons. Perhaps this is because apes that have little or no language are able to recognize objects and persons and we have inherited this trait. Language however restricts our ability to express ourselves and reason.

For instance, I know that object A has a hex color code of #474747 but I can express this as "grey-black", "blackish grey", "dark grey", and "light black" but how can you determine if I don&#39;t mean the color #5e5e5e, #707070, #6e6e6e, #333333?

Now for reason, how can I know something if the words to describe it are erroneous or not descriptive enough? For instance, object B is a blue translucent plastic bottle with the words "Dejà Blue" on it. But if I have never seen object B, how can I know what it is? I have an image of it, but I cannot validate if it is true or false.

[TC]

I don&#39;t think language restricts people&#39;s thoughts so much as...people think in a fairly linguistic way. It might sometimes be hard to express what you&#39;re feeling for instance but, i don&#39;t think people really ever have clear and distinct concepts that can&#39;t be articulated into language. Even if you don&#39;t have the right words, like some languages have words for concepts that have no word in english (like, gestalt, logos, geist, ect.) but its still possible to describe those concepts with english sentinces...same as in any modern language.

[I Watch The Watchers]

I have just consulted an expert on this mater. My roommate is finishing up an honours degree in linguistics and I showed her this thread. For a few minutes she sat in disbelief and then laughed a bit. To her the idea that language has any intrinsic ability to oppress its users is ridiculous. Language can certainly be used to mislead and thereby oppress people. In fact that&#39;s what her thesis is on: the use of language in media to create an "us and them" mentality in the american mindset leading up to the war in Iraq. But language formed organically as a way to express ourselves. The influences that the church or capitalism might have had over language are incidental given that any thought that can be expressed in, for example, Hindi can be expressed just as well in English, with only a few exceptions. Language certainly does allow for propaganda of the type that both George Orwell and Noam Chomsky have discussed but it can be used just as easily to describe the real truth of the mater, as well as we can determine it. And in response to the original question, I certainly have thoughts that are not ready to be put into words but that is just because they are not well defined enough to be described.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by I Watch The [email protected] 9 2005, 05:48 PM
In fact that&#39;s what her thesis is on: the use of language in media to create an "us and them" mentality in the american mindset leading up to the war in Iraq.
That&#39;s not what I meant. I was referring to expression, and a lack of words to express myself with. Although I agree with her &#39;us and them&#39; analysis.

If you have a shit imagination then you really wont understand what im on about. Unless you&#39;ve been faced with a situation where you cannot explain your ideas with words then don&#39;t bother &#39;assessing&#39; my point.

[I Watch The Watchers]

Your statement, as I understand it, is that I must have a "shit imagination" if I&#39;ve never found a situation or an idea that cannot be expressed in words. I would say that I have come up with many such ideas and either found words for them or thought about them longer until I could adequately express those concepts. My writing often focuses on difficult to explain concepts.

One story is about people assembling angels and demons (which are really archetypes for philosophical concepts) into a super-dimensional structure that will constitute the mind of God. In order to describe the true nature of the "angels and demons" I use, I have drawn on my understanding of Plato&#39;s forms as well as what quantum physics I&#39;ve read. I&#39;m getting at the idea of a higher realm of consciousness existing and being a pre-cursor to all temporal and spatial phenomena. The forces in these realms, which I call Gods, for the purposes of story telling, act upon the world using "ethereal technologies" which are constructed from space and time.

I hope that is sufficiently imaginative enough to convince you that I do have some ideas and that they are often very difficult to articulate but that I manage using existing words in new combinations. That&#39;s one of the most essential things about language: it has the ability to describe anything that is thinkable. I think you will find that if you develop your ideas (perhaps by using allegories at first) and supplement your vocabulary by looking into physics, philosophy, or whatever suits you, you&#39;ll find a good fit for all your thoughts. To start you off here are some phrases that might have worked better than “shit imagination”:

Poor imagination. Limited imagination. A clear lack of imaginative ability. Very little imagination. Imaginational difficulties. Inability to grasp complex or abstract thoughts. Creative shortcomings. Insufficient super-logical facilities. No faculties for the interpreting of creative impulses or influences. A simple-mindedness when attempting to actualize the frivolous fancies of the soul.

If you are limited to saying “shit imagination” when you have all these combinations (and far more) available to you then I’m sceptical about your ability to determine whether or not words exist to fit the specific thoughts you have.

I don’t actually intend to offend you but I want to make myself clear on this point.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I confess, I&#39;m a filthy Chomskyite.
Language itself cannot be twisted because it is an innate human ability, like depth-perception. Popular language and usage can certainly be twisted, but short of rewiring yr brain, you will never be incapable of having certain thoughts, even if everyone is talking Nuspeak.

[Black Dagger]

If you are limited to saying “shit imagination” when you have all these combinations (and far more) available to you then I’m sceptical about your ability to determine whether or not words exist to fit the specific thoughts you have.

Maybe he didn&#39;t want to come-off sounding like a wanker?

[Bannockburn]

Often, I have trailed off into a blizzard of ideas, starting with a common thought and taking it to unusual levels. Only to find that when I try to translate my Ideas to English, it doesn&#39;t quite work.

Or to put it simply, I cannot express my ideas with language. I can&#39;t even summarise them in my own head, and thus I cannot analyse them in English, and this stops me thinking. I just automatically shut down and think about something else.

Does this ever happen to you? And if not, think about it logically, language has its limits, is it possible that the very structure of mainstream languages oppresses our creative thoughts?

Well my first question for you, what is your native first language? If you are trying to express philosophical thinking in German or Greek, and then try to express it in English, well you&#39;re going to have trouble.

Moreover. This is an open ended, but closed question at the sametime isn&#39;t it? First, we think in language, and thus it does restrict our thought insofar language is a finite system. However, language is always reinventing itself, and creating new words. Its autopoetic in a way. So, in all honestly if language is restricting you, or there are not words to express your thoughts – well think or new words to express your thoughts. Philosophy has been doing it for years – look at the word “autopoetic”. Its not English insofar traditional English, yet it is a word.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I found myself a couple of times without words to describe a thought. Language doesn&#39;t necessarily represent reality very well, because in a way it&#39;s just what we use to "describe" it.

I suppose that if you could make it so that people can&#39;t express an idea with words, then that people will become frustrated and be prone to accepting whatever you want them to since they will assume that they can&#39;t express their "alternative" because it makes no sense.

[Postteen]

Yes, unfortunately it does.Sometimes it gets very hard, especially if what I want to say is about politics.But since I&#39;ve learning english for 8 years, I can say that don&#39;t think firstly in my mother language, so I don&#39;t need to translate things in my head-but this applies only to easy things.When i have in my mind a difficult philosoplical meaning and I want to express it in english, I have to translate, and most the times the translation is not natural and quite difficult to understand.

Sometimes I just wish I could use my primary language........

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 10 2005, 01:04 AM
I confess, I&#39;m a filthy Chomskyite.
Language itself cannot be twisted because it is an innate human ability, like depth-perception. Popular language and usage can certainly be twisted, but short of rewiring yr brain, you will never be incapable of having certain thoughts, even if everyone is talking Nuspeak.
This is what I was getting at.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by I Watch The [email protected] 10 2005, 12:42 AM
If you are limited to saying “shit imagination” when you have all these combinations (and far more) available to you then I’m sceptical about your ability to determine whether or not words exist to fit the specific thoughts you have.

No I have no problem with my vocabulary. Im a successful Philosophy and Literature Student.

Yet, the theories you mentioned, notably Platos theory of forms, or meta-ethics, are fairly simple, and commonly written about. I am referring to ideas that are immeasurably more abstract.

[I Watch The Watchers]

Well it&#39;s good to see we&#39;re not using words like "shit imagination" any more. And you&#39;re right that Platonic imagery is relatively simple to discus these days because it has been written about for so long. However, I doubt that Plato initially found it so easy to articulate. My point was simply that these concepts were at one time unthinkable until Plato expressed them visually in a metaphor, thus proving that abstract thought can be communicated in some way.

I think there are, in history and literature, many examples of complex ideas made simple by metaphor or simile, and that it&#39;s not until being translated into this context that abstract thoughts can be assimilated by the higher brain. The same phenomena occur in math, where quantum physicists use metaphors such as "Schrodenger&#39;s Cat in a Box" to illustrate bizarre and contradictory scenarios that couldn&#39;t happen within conventional physics. These are things that were unconceivable by the human mind until math proved they could happen... but language can be adapted to describe them as well.

In all fairness I have no way of proving you wrong or even knowing myself that you are wrong but I do believe that if you can find metaphors to express all the abstract things currently discussed in philosophy and physics then you will be able to find words for your thoughts, as abstract as they may be.

Also, I should apologize for my earlier comments. I was too short and dismissive in my last post. The one before that was actually directed more at the people who claimed language to be something controlled by the church or the capitalists. Language, I hope we can agree, is something controlled by the people who use it.

[Chuck]

Civilizations are based upon languages. Communication is essential in creating governments, and sharing new idea.

Language is only as useful as the person using it. It&#39;s simply a tool, and if you wield it well, it&#39;s an asset and if you don&#39;t, it&#39;s a hinderance.

If you lack the word for the idea you are expressing, create a new one.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:17 PM
If you lack the word for the idea you are expressing, create a new one.
But nobody will ever understand what this word really means, and you probably won&#39;t be able to describe it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Latifa+Oct 22 2005, 09:26 PM--> (Latifa @ Oct 22 2005, 09:26 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 01:17 PM
If you lack the word for the idea you are expressing, create a new one.
But nobody will ever understand what this word really means, and you probably won&#39;t be able to describe it. [/b]
Actually, I&#39;ve created words often enough; I simply use pre-existing compounds, suffixes and prefixes most of the time. Often enough though, I can find fitting words and the more I learn, the more I find creating words generally isn&#39;t needed.

[slim]

Originally posted by NoXion+Sep 28 2005, 09:42 PM--> (NoXion @ Sep 28 2005, 09:42 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 04:48 PM
Language is part of communication. 90% of communication is body language leaving the other ten percent to speech and telepathy.

Telepathy?&#33; This is Science & Environment, not Pseudoscience & Environment. [/b]
Aye, telepathy is part of communication and cannot be "purged" for not being as physical as other sciences. It is still a science as it exists and is part of the world.

Its not as full out as telepathy but everyone has it and uses it. Call it vibes or whatever but its there. Its part of comprehension of what people are saying too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aye, telepathy is part of communication and cannot be "purged" for not being as physical as other sciences. It is still a science as it exists and is part of the world.

Prove that telepathy exists and is not simply fraudulent bullshit.


Its not as full out as telepathy but everyone has it and uses it. Call it vibes or whatever but its there. Its part of comprehension of what people are saying too.

That&#39;s not telepathy. The "vibes" one feels have more to do with body language, the tone of people&#39;s voices and one&#39;s psychological assessment of their surroundings.