Language Philosophy

[Ebo352]

I have always been fascinated by language, especially its treatment by philosophy. Wittgenstein was great on his treatment and is great reading (especially his tractatus and the conclusions he draws from it) but I always felt there were gaps in his ideas.
I have toyed with, and now believe, the idea that language should be treated as a tool or artifact and less like an art. Language is a human construct and as such, is imperfect. It is the imperfections that people need to realize and understand before they can really 'see' the world. Much like Nietzsche and his ubermunchin, the person who can understand the flaws of language is in the best position to shape and control it (and by extension, the world).
Language does nothing but supplant reality but instead of recognizing this, people just accept language as reality. For example, think of a car. You know what I mean by a car, but for each person that reads this, they will think of different car. This means that the word 'car' now takes the form of all the different conceptions people can have about it and it muddles the meaning of 'car'. Now, if I show you a car, then there is no doubt what 'car' means, because it is staring you in the face. Language can be nothing more than a pale imitation of reality but is usually accepted as reality.
My other thought, along this line, covers religion. Now, if you accept that language is a tool, then it follows that the basis for all religion is man and not god. This is because the basis for religion is the attempt to explain the mind-body disconnect ie: the soul, the supernatural, etc. What I submit, is that the mind-body problem is simply a misunderstanding of the role that language plays for us humans. People wonder what is more real, my body or my mind and this tension gave the world the idea of the soul; something within you that is at the same time without you. But, that is language. It is a tool, but it is a tool that has to be internalized by each person before it can be advantageous to us (or be used). We have use the tool of language but are trained to think in terms of 'I' and 'me' so we, naturally, associate our expressions of language to ourself. But, unlike other tools (hammers, cars, books) we consider language to be apart of us. I mean, there would be problems if you tried to bond with a hammer and think of it as a part of your being; it is the same with language. So, your conception of the soul is simply your difficulties in internalizing language.

[Monte314]

Now, if you accept that language is a tool, then it follows that the basis for all religion is man and not god.

Non sequitur.

But your other ideas are very interesting. Some philosophers have gone so far as to equate language with thought. I'm not sure that I would do that, but language certainly seems to be integral to our personalities.

[Ebo352]

Yes, I guess that language is responsible for thought would be one of my presuppositions. I just treated it as a priori.
But, why do you not believe this? For me, people think in language, and so there can be no thought without language. Yes, we could reproduce pictures and other images 'in our head', but what meaning does a picture have without language? You would have no frame of reference to understand that it is a picture or what it is representing. Thats why I see it as more a tool, something we use to gain a desired result.
As for my non-sequitur, I guess I should have placed that statement after my line of reasoning?

[Deadgod]

As for my non-sequitur, I guess I should have placed that statement after my line of reasoning?

In the mathematical sense, you probably should have. But in a philosophical sense, the premise is still the premise and the conclusion the conclusion, regardless of any permutation you'd present your argument in. Or maybe the conclusion was placed due to INTJ fallacy :P?

Language, through my own epistemic understanding, is a tool to convey ideas, empirical or abstract. It is a part of us only because we like to believe such through feeling, but primarily because we see it as the most important tool for getting things done in the fluctuation of binaries (for the case of language, let's call this speaking and listening) that our lives consist of. But a recognition as the most important tool requires something beyond. Kant called this transcendental idealism. I would call this, in Jungian terms, Introverted Feeling.
I don't think human nature can escape language. If everyone were to stay static and not communicate linguistically, I think sooner or later feelings will arise, and language would come back (though no one wouldn't like hearing the other person say, "why haven't you said anything for years?", unless they are emotionally masochistic). I can assume that Jung believed that feeling was important because it is a judgment function that creates the vital motion imperative to all of us. It is the intention that arises from something beyond us that creates the changes that are necessary (necessity, however, is and can be subject to philosophical scrutiny).

I mean, there would be problems if you tried to bond with a hammer and think of it as a part of your being

Tried bonding with Nietzsche's philosophical hammer? And what would be so wrong if a handyman who loved his job so much, decided to amputate his arm to insert his lovely hammer?

Sorry if all of this sounds like I'm going on a non-nonsensical tangent, but at the root of language lies communication, and the root of communication is motion. I think we should penetrate the philosophical barriers in communication (motion if possible), communication being aesthetics, epistemology, and lastly, language.

[Seraph]

For me, people think in language, and so there can be no thought without language.

I think that language is merely a tool developed by humans for communication, but with the essential nature of human interaction in the modern world it is difficult to not use this tool to communicate and still be an independently-functioning person.

Often when I am thinking of ideas, planning courses of action, or performing tasks I rarely think in terms of language; rather, I simply picture the desired action. For example, at this moment I am thinking of cleaning my room. While the concept of 'cleaning my room' is a method of communicating the idea to others it also will mean different things to different people. For me, I picture what is wrong (books strewn about) and picture what I'd like it to look like when i am finished, and my brain supplies necessary actions and transitions to perform these tasks. I don't think to myself 'I shall place this book in bookshelf A', as that is not necessary for me to understand my thought process.

The point I am trying to make is that individual thought processes don't have to be understood in the context of language, but only by the individual. If I thought of the symbol of a 'horse' everytime I wished to clean my room and I perfectly understood it, then it would be useful to me. Obviously this would confuse others as they may associate completely different ideas with 'horse'. This conflict of meaning is only an issue when communication must occur, or for example, my friend was helping me clean my room. In this case, I would need to verbalize the pictures in my mind so both of us can understand what needs to occur. For this task I would utilize the language tool, as it is a medium through which both of us can convey ideas with common meanings.

To return to the original idea, I think that there can be thought without language, but language is typically required to convey the thoughts to others. Even then, the thoughts can be communicated through graphic displays- for example, many people would quickly make the connection between an image of a heart and the emotion love. This is a complex situation, however, because while visual communication does not involve direct language usage, often the components of the image have been previously explained through the use of language. So while language may have implanted the ideas, an individual's mental constructs and symbolic systems may have have changed to represent a completely different idea- in which case, this new concept would require the use of language to be accurately conveyed and explained to another individual.

[Monte314]

For me, people think in language, and so there can be no thought without language. Yes, we could reproduce pictures and other images 'in our head', but what meaning does a picture have without language? You would have no frame of reference to understand that it is a picture or what it is representing.


What do you think Helen Keller would say about these ideas?

[Lionel]

For example, think of a car. You know what I mean by a car, but for each person that reads this, they will think of different car. .
Allan Watts discribes this phenomina my saying-the maps is not the territory, "Words are the map to the territory of existense and we shouldn't confuse the map with territory" however ever philosopher should be aware of the limitation of langauge, to me language its still an art because its not natrual as the rocks are tree are, its an abitary creation of the human mind, which inspired by the human mind, you said that "individaul thought processes dont of to be understood in context of langauge" i am not sure if i understanding what this mean but, i think our thought process has to be interpret by normal langauge, you said 'if' you thought of 'horse' everytime you wished to clean your room but question is, do you? i dont think so, word are use to point to an idea and went that idea is understood the words are no longer essential. You also said that "I think that there can be thought without language" i never thought about that before,so my question to you is what do you think about how whale communicated? they have thought but not langauge

[zibber]

What do you think Helen Keller would say about these ideas?

W-A-T-E-R?

[Ebo352]

Well, I do love philosophy, so Imma geek-out and try to reply to most of whats been posted.

Language, through my own epistemic understanding, is a tool to convey ideas, empirical or abstract.

I should take a step back and define a few things; language and language . To me language is the way that people can comprehend the world around us. Language is the way we communicate with others. So, with language I am talking about the internal way that people comprehend the world. Many of us tend to comform the language around us (english, french, russian, etc) and use them as vessels to our own internal language. Wittgenstien explains it much better, but I'll try a quick example. Take the car again, we all know, in some way, what a car is; that comprehension between when I write car, and you understand it, is what I take to be language. Thats why Hellen Keller (and actually the water scene is where I was first introduced to this thinking) would agree. In one moment, she didnt really understand what water was and then in the next did.

I can assume that Jung believed that feeling was important because it is a judgment function that creates the vital motion imperative to all of us. It is the intention that arises from something beyond us that creates the changes that are necessary (necessity, however, is and can be subject to philosophical scrutiny).

I have never read Jung, but I like those ideas. The interactions we have with others is a major way that we learn language but I'm talking more about the understanding part (per the above).

Tried bonding with Nietzsche's philosophical hammer? And what would be so wrong if a handyman who loved his job so much, decided to amputate his arm to insert his lovely hammer?

Nothing! =) I wouldnt really recommend he do it though... The point is that if he did it, there would be a whole new reality he would have to accept (he has only 5 fingers, he has problems getting through security, etc). And thats why when we obtain language, there are certain new realities we have to deal with (one of which, I explain, is the conflict we call the soul).


While the concept of 'cleaning my room' is a method of communicating the idea to others it also will mean different things to different people.

Ok, I want to tackle the second part about the idea behind communication. How do you know what it means to 'clean your room' - I say one of the ways you know is in the way you can communicate it to others (as you also say). So, there is an agreed upond meaning in that phrase. Now, the next step is to apply that concept (you know things through communication) to each word, to each letter, to each number and symbol, etc etc etc. And this is the point. That your ideas are shaped and shape the world around you; how you understand the phrase 'clean my room' shapes and is shaped by the world. This means that how you really understand the world is through language; if you did not know what the word 'clean' (or propre, or whatever language/symbol/dance/song) then you would not be able to shape the world around you. Its a balence that requires both.

Allan Watts discribes this phenomina my saying-the maps is not the territory, "Words are the map to the territory of existense and we shouldn't confuse the map with territory"

I agree with this (and your supporting explanation) on the whole. Language is a plae immitation of reality and when people realize that, then can better understand the world. Why? B/c when you realize that, then you realize that there is what I have just called langauge; your comprehension of the world around you. That is what gives meaning to the worlds (One of the big problems, as you pointed to, is that we have no other tool to really express our selves, so we are kinda trapped within langauge and only able to explain it through itself).

you said 'if' you thought of 'horse' everytime you wished to clean your room but question is, do you? i dont think so, word are use to point to an idea and went that idea is understood the words are no longer essential.

Ok. I agree that we loose the concious meaning of 'clean' every time we use the term, and just know the meaning. What I say, is there is a problem with that. Because your using a tool (language) but really kinda thinking that it is you. You get side-tracked. Now, this is a good thing a lot of the time. We would not be here is we had to process language that inefficently; but, the consequence of that is that conflicts arise (one of which I say is the soul).

You also said that "I think that there can be thought without language" i never thought about that before,so my question to you is what do you think about how whale communicated? they have thought but not langauge

Yup, they may have language. But, a. we don't know if it is intelligent (not definitivly b/c we cannot comprehend it) and b. if they have langauge, and we know it, then we should be able to communicate with them. That is one of the basic ways we tell if someone/thing/animal is intelligent and has language. So, it may be that the whales are talking about us behind our backs and were to stupid to know... Maybe my welcoming trout slap will confuse them...

[Monte314]

W-A-T-E-R?

She was clearly thinking before the notion of "language" entered her world. The "water" event was just her making the connection between her language-free thinking and the symbols we use for concepts already known to her.

[Deliberator]

The only rules about language are that it must be arbitrary (there is no inherent meaning to certain sounds or else you I would not be able to communicate a word such as "unwritten" in writing) and must be conventional. If one person uses the word "humble" to mean "modest" but another perceives "humble" to mean "self-derogatory" then the two minds cannot relate their thoughts properly when using this word in a conversation.

Also, the idea of "proper" use of language is indeed silly because "proper" merely means "because somebody said so". You could say that ending a sentence with a preposition is improper but if it becomes so widespread that almost everyone does it, the language has changed permanently and that change becomes a "proper use" of the language due to conventionality.

So I think language is merely a symbol for our thoughts. Even a car is a thought, as a car must be perceived by our senses and processed through our brains for us to know that it exists. However, it must be remembered that our thoughts and minds are limited, thus language, especially in regard to abstract thought, will lead to problems.


It reminds me of a existence question that arose during a metaphysics class I took a few years ago.

Visualize a lump of clay. A sculptor takes the lump of clay, and shapes it into a beautiful statue. Then the sculptor destroys his sculpture, which becomes the shapeless lump of clay again.

Lump of clay --> statue --> lump of clay
Did the lump of clay cease to exist, and then come to reexist? How can this take place if we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed?
You may answer, "because the statue is also a lump of clay". But then we ask, how can two distinct objects occupy the same space at the same time? That's not physically possible.

What ran through my head the whole time was: our understanding of this problem is severely limited by our understanding of the nature of language.

The problem arises from an inability to distinguish functional labeling from true existence. The word "sculpture" merely symbolizes our understanding of a lump of clay that has been manipulated into a recognizable shape. Two exact things do not exist in the same space at the same time in reality (atoms are atoms) but our definitions of such objects may conflict or overlap, causing us to momentarily conclude that two objects are occupying the same space when in fact this is only the case in our perception.

Here's another one that I think is even more fun:
If not a single atom in your body is the same as when you were a baby (which is true) how can you say that you are the same person?





Deliberator added to this post, 14 minutes and 10 seconds later...


I have toyed with, and now believe, the idea that language should be treated as a tool or artifact and less like an art.

What is the difference, to you, between language as a tool and language as an art?

[AnonymousPlease]

Does being precede language?

[Lionel]

Does being precede language?

no i dont think so, it depents on what do you mean by langauge. is it the interaction being organism or is 'language' that created by 'thought-form' which exist in the mind?

[zibber]

Does being precede language?

Utterly meaningless question.


If not a single atom in your body is the same as when you were a baby (which is true) how can you say that you are the same person?


Why would anybody think they were?

[Lionel]

Utterly meaningless question.



i agree with this statment

[Deliberator]

Why would anybody think they were?

What about when you were six years old?

ten?

twelve?

fifteen?

ten months ago?

ten minutes ago? (I'm sure you've lost a few atoms of your body in the form of dead skin cells since then)

That is, if you weren't you when you were a baby, when did you become you?

[Marcus]

Here's another one that I think is even more fun:
If not a single atom in your body is the same as when you were a baby (which is true) how can you say that you are the same person?

It's not the atoms what really define you but the way they are arranged. The arrangement of the atoms is evolving, but stays correlated through time. Also the arrangement encodes your past, thus identifies you with it. It's not the matter but information that counts, I think.

[zibber]

(Not that this is especially relevant to the particular topic at hand)

What about when you were six years old?

ten?

twelve?

fifteen?

ten months ago?

ten minutes ago? (I'm sure you've lost a few atoms of your body in the form of dead skin cells since then)

That is, if you weren't you when you were a baby, when did you become you?

I was me, as at ten, twelve, fifteen, in last January and at this moment. Awareness has been constant, excepting the times I slept and/or was marvellously inebriated. It emerges from the whole of atoms (or a whole of atoms; who knows exactly which?) and somehow remains intact despite that whole of atoms constantly losing and gaining new particles.

(As for the information being a part of my identity: this is another emergent entity, a construction of many concepts and single facts, which is added to the core I but only as essentially linked to it as you let it be. It doesn't even have to be an emergent identity, as one can just observe aspects of "it" unto themselves without constantly making conceptual connections.)