Language does not determine thought.
There was a recent discussion and difference surrounding the idea, "What language you use will determine how you think."
I disagree with this, for new language is created often.
Heidegger's neologisms are a perfect example of this.
"Thoughts are the shadows of our emotions; always darker, emptier and simpler."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thoughts are centered around the affects that constitute them, for what else could give a word meaning subjectively?
How one thinks is in accordance with what one has at their disposal, namely words; however, these words do not have meaning within them: they represent meaning.
Language cannot determine thought.
If so, would poetry still be intelligible?
It is precisely the intelligibility of language that makes thought prior to language, and which makes thought determine what language one will use.
I disagree with this, for new language is created often.
Heidegger's neologisms are a perfect example of this.
"Thoughts are the shadows of our emotions; always darker, emptier and simpler."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thoughts are centered around the affects that constitute them, for what else could give a word meaning subjectively?
How one thinks is in accordance with what one has at their disposal, namely words; however, these words do not have meaning within them: they represent meaning.
Language cannot determine thought.
If so, would poetry still be intelligible?
It is precisely the intelligibility of language that makes thought prior to language, and which makes thought determine what language one will use.
Comments (9)
This is a bit irrelevant.
The question is whether or not one's language use determines ones subsequent thought(s).
If you are considering it the case that a certain concatenation of thinking will designate an outcome regardless of the will of the thinker, which is simply simulated by the thinker, then thought itself is at base deterministic and thus consciousness, what it will think and make of itself based on what it claims to know, is already determined; and therefore there is no freedom?
There are other types of languages: painters' language, musicians' language, wine-tasters' language, chefs' language etc. etc...
A painter's language is about visual impressions, shadows etc. etc. Wine-testers language is about taste and can be translated with vocabulary related to a variety of wine-taste descriptions.
Consequently, it is hard to determine which of the languages guide our not-lingual and lingual thoughts. It is also hard to determine how and if a language guides our lingual thoughts...
Hearty, :cool:
Maybe we could take the painter's "language" as a proto-language - in which colours and shades are "words" - that predates our verbal language...
Practically whatever we express - and how we express it - has a syntax - and is translatable into our verbal language...
Our differences are not so great. You think of only verbal language emerging from non-verbal expressions. I agree with a remark - non-verbal expressions are also a language in its own right... (Consider body language for example.)
Practically all we express is expressed in a language. Sometimes we even create a "language" with its "words" and "syntax"...
Hearty, :cool:
However, I agree that the most common idea about this is the one about a painter speaking and writing with visual words, the musician in words that revolves around sound, the wine-taster about taste and so on. However, is that a product of the mind or might the interest have been fueled by the language, i.e when interests were forming, did the language used influence what path an individual took?
Depends on what you would call thoughts it seems to me.
Are emotions thoughts? Nietzsche doesn't seem to think so, otherwise he wouldn't set them apart like that in that quote...
Is an emotion that we just become aware of allready a thought, or is it only a thought when we reflect on it and categorise it in language, so we can understand what it is?
Maybe thought isn't only determined by language, but it still is an essential component of what a thought is?
It seems thought can be a sort of expression of existence, but it is not limited to this. Thought is at base a relation, not an expression.
And so if thought is at primordially a relation and not an expression, it seems that its 'operation' does not necessitate it being a language.
Language is, furthermore, communicability. Thought is not tied to being communicable. I would say 99% of 'thought' is completely incapable of being communicated. Thought is a relationality.
And therefore there is no fundamental contingency between thought and language, only in terms of expression.
@ChatteringMonkey Reflection creates representations of experience. Nietzsche has distinguished between emotion and thought, but he has called thoughts the 'shadows' of emotions. They, in a sense, represent emotions, but they cannot adequately be said to be mere representations. Does a shadow 'represent' a figure? A shadow is a figure displayed atop certain determinants, and these determinants create a distinctly different figure... The figure would be the emotion, and the thought would be the shadow.
Consciousness is to be aware that one is conscious. To be conscious implies certain fundamental ties; intentionality--consciousness is always consciousness of something. It would not be consciousness that is conscious of an emotion... It would be being conscious of being consciousness (of) an emotion. Consciousness is always consciousness of something, and therefore the emotion is not separate from that consciousness. It is that consciousness. There is not a mysterious ego behind the scenes that experiences everything and is categorizing it as it goes. It is its experiences, and such a categorization comes subsequently, in relation to what is manageable and capable of being related. Thought is not the Creator of phenomena. It is the relationality of phenomena. Emotions are proximal to consciousness. Emotions constitute our facticity... Much different than thought.
Emotions, formless and impoverished in their concepts seem to be the current of the ocean that would be the interconnectivity of volition fragmented, serving the many 'forces' of emotions that 'provide' or sustain thoughts, which are at base simplified amalgamations of obscure happenings. Emotions seem to be a sort of foundation for the concatenation of thought.
@Christoffer
I believe that sequentiality is our stumbling block. There are two kinds of expression - habitual and nonhabitual. Habitual expressions do not need thoughts - they only need to react in a quick-paced dialogue...
The common mistake is that we think in an orderly fashion: something ? thought ? expression. That's not the case. We are having several iterations of interplays between intent to express and nonhabitual expressions - until we decide that the expression is good enough. (Intent ? expression)
As I was drafting this reply - I had several attempts to express myself. Each time my expression grew in detail - until the draft was acceptable. That's exactly how we think... :)
Enjoy the day, :cool: