Hey, I just got a philosophy question, which I can't really think of any points to start with... The question is "Is it possible to think without language?".
Is it possible to think without language?
You can still think in emotions?
Can baby's think? Before they learnd a language? It's hard, you got to explane what you mean by "thinking".
Can baby's think? Before they learnd a language? It's hard, you got to explane what you mean by "thinking".
It definitely is possible to think without language. There are loads of times when one thought of mine has led to another without any words at all. Afterreaching a the conclusion of the thought process, that's when I somwhoe put my thoughts into words for myself. Mostly, my thinking is without language. Trying to think in a language, with all its grammatical sense and its word structuring really slows thought down.
| orcaz wrote: |
| Hey, I just got a philosophy question, which I can't really think of any points to start with... The question is "Is it possible to think without language?". |
Language is the very expression of your rationality which in turn operates in what you call "thinking". Therefore you can only think using language. Uhhh, please note that in philosophy "language" does not necessarily mean "French" or "German".
| tidruG wrote: |
| Trying to think in a language, with all its grammatical sense and its word structuring really slows thought down. |
The question is not really about whether thought must not slow down or not but about the possibility of thought without language. I think Wittgenstein has worked that question out. Thought is logic-al; thought without language is not possible.
I suppose I don't understand. Surely you can think without language, it's your thoughts that become expressed by language. What do you mean thinking? Do you mean it as in the electrical processes in your brain.
You're constantly thinking without knowing it. The thinking that controls your heart and lungs, for instance, does not need language - you just automatically think to breathe in and out, automatically think to beat your heart.
You're constantly thinking without knowing it. The thinking that controls your heart and lungs, for instance, does not need language - you just automatically think to breathe in and out, automatically think to beat your heart.
I know I couldn't. I think quite a lot and it's all in perfectly good English; although sometimes I even comtemplate to myself "is that the right way to pronounce that?" I heard there are two types of thinkers: those who think in words and those who think in emotions and pictures. I'm a word thinker.
Are pictures equivalent to language? because if it is not, then one can think without language, esp babies who are able to fit a block into a hole without knowing a single word.
Anything is possible........but I think the baby analagy says it all, and im almost positive animals think to 
Only to a very limited extent.
First is instinct which is an emotional response to a stimulus. A dog feels threatened and it attacks, a baby feels scared and cries.
The baby/block analogy was good, and shows some ability to think, however this is a low level and applies primarily to things that you can sense and factors in a memory effect.
However, to think in terms of abstract concepts, you have to a language to describe these concepts.
I guess reading up on Helen Keller and how much congnitive ability and reasoning she had before she learned to communicate.
First is instinct which is an emotional response to a stimulus. A dog feels threatened and it attacks, a baby feels scared and cries.
The baby/block analogy was good, and shows some ability to think, however this is a low level and applies primarily to things that you can sense and factors in a memory effect.
However, to think in terms of abstract concepts, you have to a language to describe these concepts.
I guess reading up on Helen Keller and how much congnitive ability and reasoning she had before she learned to communicate.
Language.....when thought about scientifically is an accepted set of rules to which general masses conform to, while there is need to communication. I dont think it wud be something which is restricted to mere audio expression or atleast the normal audio range of human hearing. Surely, other beings do communicate with their rules, which by the way are shaped from times unknown and actually constantly evolve. Thus, we see that middle age english was quite "french" like in nature and now we have asian terms entering the frame.
As regards to thinking, well whilst thinking wudnt be restricted by the language, what wud be restricted severely is the ability to communicate the thought process or express it.
And in Indian philosophy, we have this idea of Parama brahma or the supreme being. Basically, the very ability to envision the state of the supreme being is not attained easily. While few ppl claim to find the true sense of it all, communicating it is impossible.
Science talks about the energy fields and things like that. Well, while a person who has expereicned it can take the idea further, convincing others is impossible.
Let's keep this going.
THX
As regards to thinking, well whilst thinking wudnt be restricted by the language, what wud be restricted severely is the ability to communicate the thought process or express it.
And in Indian philosophy, we have this idea of Parama brahma or the supreme being. Basically, the very ability to envision the state of the supreme being is not attained easily. While few ppl claim to find the true sense of it all, communicating it is impossible.
Science talks about the energy fields and things like that. Well, while a person who has expereicned it can take the idea further, convincing others is impossible.
Let's keep this going.
THX
| damj wrote: |
| Only to a very limited extent.
First is instinct which is an emotional response to a stimulus. A dog feels threatened and it attacks, a baby feels scared and cries. The baby/block analogy was good, and shows some ability to think, however this is a low level and applies primarily to things that you can sense and factors in a memory effect. However, to think in terms of abstract concepts, you have to a language to describe these concepts. I guess reading up on Helen Keller and how much congnitive ability and reasoning she had before she learned to communicate. |
I think animals show definite thought processes pretty regularly (nothing spectacular, but the question didn't put any conditions on how much). My sisters lab can be told to go get a particular toy from a particular room. In general terms, I think that qualifies as thinking.
I'm surprised that the question posed in class was so general and didn't specify only humans. I 'd be interested in what was being taught prior to the question.
Was there any discussion of thinking vs learning and what language means?
damj, you alluded to Helen Keller. Can you tell us more about her abilities before she learned to communicate. Very curious.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
|
I think animals show definite thought processes pretty regularly (nothing spectacular, but the question didn't put any conditions on how much). My sisters lab can be told to go get a particular toy from a particular room. In general terms, I think that qualifies as thinking. I'm surprised that the question posed in class was so general and didn't specify only humans. I 'd be interested in what was being taught prior to the question. Was there any discussion of thinking vs learning and what language means?
damj, you alluded to Helen Keller. Can you tell us more about her abilities before she learned to communicate. Very curious. |
Not yet... we were juz given this philosophical question to do...
Obviously, people(well most) don't think in language. Take a second and try it, you'll notice you actually think with images and feelings, not language. You simply articulate your thoughts into speech, but thoughts are not speech themselves. For people to think, language is not nesicary, but for people to communicate so they can pool together and save their thoughts you need a common way to express your thoughts, language.
In my opinion, I think that in the process of thinking, actually language is not really necessary. Language comes in really important only when one wants to convey his message or theory through, because obviously people will not be able to understand what you think without language. For example, you do not need language to fit pieces into a puzzle at all. Language is needed when u haf to let others understand.
Have you ever thought or felt something but didnt know how to say it? You have to have thought of it without language otherwise you wouldnt have been able to think of it at all.
Hmmm its a tricky one. If I can speak for my own personal experience, based on about 30 years of hard-core thinking...
I am sure that in my most lucid moments I think in terms of structures, relationships, fields, directions, shapes, balances, flows, etc. depending on what I am doing at the time. It surely doesn't feel like language at the time. It's definitely not in words (I have struggled and tried *many* times to flatten the process out into linear text, and it is pretty near impossible). It's also definitely not visual or pictorial, although there is often a strong geometric element (it's usually in many dimensions though - I work in mathematical modelling, where we often deal with many thousands of relationships and variables at the same time).
When I am struggling to get something to work out, when I can't see the whole thing in my mind, then I resort to the hard grind of sequential logic and words, and that clearly is language-related, although not usually in terms of words, symbols or pictures in my head unless I am really struggling.
As an analogy, it feels like in my lucid moments I can "wave a magic wand" and create vast and detailed cathedrals of thought structures in my head in what feels like only a few seconds or minutes, and then set out to explore them almost at leisure. In contrast, thinking things through logically step by step is like building a housing estate with bricks and mortar and concrete - it's slow and dirty and painful and the result is usually far more ugly, even if the practical result may be more useful than the cathedral in the sky.
As a final comment, a quote from Mozart about his usual method of composing, which captures something of what I feel at times:
"First bits and crumbs of the piece come and gradually join together in my mind; then, the soul getting warmed to the work, the thing grows more and more, and I spread it out broader and clearer, and at last it gets almost finished in my head, even when it is a long piece, so that I can see the whole of it at a single glance in my mind, as if it were a beautiful painting or a handsome human being; in which way I do not hear it in my imagination at all as a succession. . . but all at once as it were. It is a rare feast."
... not that I would ever dream of comparing myself to such genius - but sometimes I feel like I have felt a tiny part of what he must have felt.
I am sure that in my most lucid moments I think in terms of structures, relationships, fields, directions, shapes, balances, flows, etc. depending on what I am doing at the time. It surely doesn't feel like language at the time. It's definitely not in words (I have struggled and tried *many* times to flatten the process out into linear text, and it is pretty near impossible). It's also definitely not visual or pictorial, although there is often a strong geometric element (it's usually in many dimensions though - I work in mathematical modelling, where we often deal with many thousands of relationships and variables at the same time).
When I am struggling to get something to work out, when I can't see the whole thing in my mind, then I resort to the hard grind of sequential logic and words, and that clearly is language-related, although not usually in terms of words, symbols or pictures in my head unless I am really struggling.
As an analogy, it feels like in my lucid moments I can "wave a magic wand" and create vast and detailed cathedrals of thought structures in my head in what feels like only a few seconds or minutes, and then set out to explore them almost at leisure. In contrast, thinking things through logically step by step is like building a housing estate with bricks and mortar and concrete - it's slow and dirty and painful and the result is usually far more ugly, even if the practical result may be more useful than the cathedral in the sky.
As a final comment, a quote from Mozart about his usual method of composing, which captures something of what I feel at times:
"First bits and crumbs of the piece come and gradually join together in my mind; then, the soul getting warmed to the work, the thing grows more and more, and I spread it out broader and clearer, and at last it gets almost finished in my head, even when it is a long piece, so that I can see the whole of it at a single glance in my mind, as if it were a beautiful painting or a handsome human being; in which way I do not hear it in my imagination at all as a succession. . . but all at once as it were. It is a rare feast."
... not that I would ever dream of comparing myself to such genius - but sometimes I feel like I have felt a tiny part of what he must have felt.
tho imo, language is not needed for thinking, man would not be able to improve on his thinking abilities or technology without language, as language is needed to convey your ideas, like what we are doing now in this forum. without language, i won't know what you are thinking about certain topics, and hence, man could not advance as many brains would obviously do things much efficiently than one brain alone. juz like computers, when there was no Internet, it is still able to do simple work like word processing, but it would not be able expand its features, like having Instant Messaging or Email, without the existence of the Internet.
to think u do not need language. the mind works in images. for example: when i say the word ELEPHANT the fist thing that comes into your mind is a picture of an elephant not the word elephant. just as it works in images it works in 'video'. you can create a video in your mind and language is not needed at all. To convey your ideas is another matter - humans can only communicate in words to understand clearly as images or video can be misinterpreted.
And if that isnt enough,
In the times of the Neanderthal and cavemen ect they did not have language yet they still communicated.
And isnt imagery a language of its own - possibly the ONLY universal language
And if that isnt enough,
In the times of the Neanderthal and cavemen ect they did not have language yet they still communicated.
And isnt imagery a language of its own - possibly the ONLY universal language
| CyanEyed wrote: |
| to think u do not need language. the mind works in images. for example: when i say the word ELEPHANT the fist thing that comes into your mind is a picture of an elephant not the word elephant. just as it works in images it works in 'video'. you can create a video in your mind and language is not needed at all. To convey your ideas is another matter - humans can only communicate in words to understand clearly as images or video can be misinterpreted.
And if that isnt enough, In the times of the Neanderthal and cavemen ect they did not have language yet they still communicated. And isnt imagery a language of its own - possibly the ONLY universal language |
but the prob is it leads to another qn, is image considered a language? coz in early ages, we could sae that the early man use images and symbols to communicate their ideas, so is picture or symbol a language???
Scientifically it would be possible ... Thoughts are quantum occurences in the brain some scientist said ...
| orcaz wrote: | ||
but the prob is it leads to another qn, is image considered a language? coz in early ages, we could sae that the early man use images and symbols to communicate their ideas, so is picture or symbol a language??? |
Early ages? Even now there are languages that don't use alphabet based writing, but rather symbols. Kanji of Japanese for example. So question is do Japanese people think in Kanji?
| orcaz wrote: |
but the prob is it leads to another qn, is image considered a language? coz in early ages, we could sae that the early man use images and symbols to communicate their ideas, so is picture or symbol a language???[/quote]
I think this is true. Thought is nothing more than cognative assosiations that have meaning to the individual. Words or what is sometimes thought of as a language are symbles and sound ques that are associated with emosions, ideals, and items. These symbol and verbal ques are taught to have specific or a standardized meaning so that this ideals can be convayed. So the word Elephant in english always refers back to the animal.
Thought is based on associations, what you see in your mind as you think will vary from individual to individual. If I showed you a picture of myself then of a mother holding a child and looking lovingly into its eyes and then follow that with a picture of a watermelon. You may thaink that "I love watermelons or "I care for Watermelons", both of wich are simulare but are up to the idividual interpreting the message to dicide what they understand.
Comunication is effectivly convaying meaning to another individual. If you use differeent symbles, i.e. language, than the receiver then communication can not happen. Language therefore is just a codified system to allow proper communication to occure. Thought is personalized and may be tainted by a language you have learned but does not have to be in language that others understand. I know that when I see a picture of a mother and child I invition love. Others may think security, trust or nuritment. In each case the thought, which is basically a communitaction with the self is transmitted in a language that the self understands.
In our dreams we are in communication with ourselfs. Dreams use verbal and symbol ques to express ideas to the self. These unfortunatly due to a lack of self awarness and understanding do not always come through clearly and self communication does not occur properly but they were in a languge.
So, in short to answer the original question. I beleive that all thought is in a language of sorts, whether we understand that language and communication occurs or not.
Tim
Imo of course you can think without language. Prehistoric people made first tools by thinking, not using words. Also language is half result of evolution the rest of thinking.
I found a website that have a few arguments for this topic. Some are for the idea that language is not required for thinking, while others are against it. However, I am more supportive of the argument that language is bound to thinking, not the other way round, as language is just an expression of one's thinking. The web is here: http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e023.html
Yes. I don't think with language much at all. If language was important poets would be the great thinkers, but they're not. Language develops to express ideas to other people, not the other way around.
I thot of another point, which is the fact that our body parts sort of communicate with our brain through the nerve, which I think can be considered a language too that we might not understand. hence, it is not possible to think if you do not see or touch or smell anything at all if there is no language, as your body parts would not be able to communicate with the brain without language... dunnoe whether this point is valid.
It depends on the meaning of language you are using. I suppose the communication between nuerons in your brain could technically be considered "language", as it is a system of communication. In that case thought is dependant on language. However, I interpreted your question's meaning as, can there be thought without person to person communication, my response to that is up a few posts.
language, when you stop and think about it, is one broad subject. thinking without the existence of it simply spawns it.
IMAGERY
ooh, emotion... good answer!
as for the controversy, i interpreted the question from the idea that we think in our native languages, usually. i think in english. i process vocabulary to express my thoughts. some use images or emotions or other forms of expression to process thought. but i think images are a big one, because i often think in images.
ooh, emotion... good answer!
as for the controversy, i interpreted the question from the idea that we think in our native languages, usually. i think in english. i process vocabulary to express my thoughts. some use images or emotions or other forms of expression to process thought. but i think images are a big one, because i often think in images.
imagery, emotions are in some way a form of language- in the manner that it conveys information to the observer. but in the end, we just end up redefining the word.
| tingkagol wrote: |
| imagery, emotions are in some way a form of language- in the manner that it conveys information to the observer. but in the end, we just end up redefining the word. |
that is exactly what i did. i described my interpretation of language ... verbal. English, Spanish, whatever human verbal language we use for communication can also be used to process thought.
I always have trouble expressing myself verbally, so I prefer the textual aspect of language. Forums are wonderful for this
... it also helps develop thoughts in language so that you can better express in vocal communication.| bluedragon wrote: |
|
that is exactly what i did. i described my interpretation of language ... verbal. English, Spanish, whatever human verbal language we use for communication can also be used to process thought. I always have trouble expressing myself verbally, so I prefer the textual aspect of language. Forums are wonderful for this ... it also helps develop thoughts in language so that you can better express in vocal communication. |
yes, language can be used in thinking, but the qn is that must language exist in order for thinking to happen?
Are those born deaf and/or blind unable to think?
| Fire Boar wrote: |
| I know I couldn't. I think quite a lot and it's all in perfectly good English; although sometimes I even comtemplate to myself "is that the right way to pronounce that?" I heard there are two types of thinkers: those who think in words and those who think in emotions and pictures. I'm a word thinker. |
Have you ever seen the crankshaft of a car? In your mind, what words do you use to describe its shape?
| bluedragon wrote: |
| Are those born deaf and/or blind unable to think? |
They should be able to think if I am not wrong.
Since thinking can sometimes happen with images. I'm going to say yes, photographic thinking is common. After all, dreams are your brain sorting through thoughts of the day right? I'm going to have to agree with the bulk on this one. Thinking without language is indeed possible and happens all the time.
got another argument from my eng tchr that language is needed for thinking, as she was teaching us abt persuasive speech, hence, we asked her this qn. and she said that something would not become logical without any form of language. for example, you wont know whether someone is kind, because you do not noe any language, and hence, cannot put that action into logic. however, actually i think differently. i think that in the purest form of thinking, language is not required. language comes in to give something meaning and to enable one to express it.
| orcaz wrote: |
| Hey, I just got a philosophy question, which I can't really think of any points to start with... The question is "Is it possible to think without language?". |
It is possible. Coz all people who are born deaf dont know any language (if you dont consider sign language). They can think .
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html
| orcaz wrote: |
| Hey, I just got a philosophy question, which I can't really think of any points to start with... The question is "Is it possible to think without language?". |
I've debated this issue with a number of people before, and I find it an interesting one. Personally I believe that thought preceeds language, and language is one of many "filters" we apply to reality (or our raw thoughts in this case) in order to function with it. Science and logic would be other such "filtering" notions. Science for instance does not directly describe reality, but rather gives us a model through which we can make sense of reality. As an example, we have never seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled an atom, but we use the concept of atoms to explain many of the phenomena that we do experience. This goes even deeper, as we use further models to explain things within our other models, while all the while none of it is "real" - we imagine electrons rotating around an atomic nucleus, but closer to the truth is the idea of a cloud of electron energy around the nucleus -- and even this presupposes that the nucleus is a "real" entity, which is it not.
I got a bit rambley there, but hopefully the message is getting through: We encounter being prior to the models we use to rationalize being - thus we have thoughts prior to the language that structures our thoughts in a rational way.
| vihang wrote: | ||
It is possible. Coz all people who are born deaf dont know any language (if you dont consider sign language). They can think . http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html |
That's an interesting example, but it might be oversimplifying things. I think most people would indeed consider sign language (and written languages for that matter) to be real examples of language. One could phrase the question in terms of logic instead (claiming that language is only a subset of logic): can we think without making use of logic? Alternatively, one could ask: Once one has learned language, is it possible to think without it?
 |