Debate Rounds (5)
I'm talking about religions, more-than-one languages and words for each meaning, agnosticism and, many times, history (I have met people in my country that accept edited forms of the history of my nation, that would seem totally ridiculus to people from abroad). I think that, in today's conditions, the only way to learn and understand our world, is through science, and that society should be modified based on it. However, I don't have enough experience to be sure about what I am writing, which I have never tried to explain to someone else. Could someone give me the opportunity to dicuss it?
I accept the challenge. Your position seems interesting to discus. Looking forward to a great debate.
I understand that language is such an important thing develop and some ideas you proposed are interesting. However, there are some problems...
More than one language
The existence of plenty of languages isn't just patriotism. Language is part of culture, and culture must be protected. Culture defines the identity of societies and nations, thus It's a very effective way of domination. Is then understandable that people want to defend their language. Controlling language is a way of controlling people, so I'm totally against this.
Too many words for only one meaning
From a pragmatic point of view It would be great to have a language as reduced as possible. However, I have two things against this.
Firstly, synonyms, though they have similar meanings, doesn't mean exactly the same. As we think using words, by limiting the words of a language we limit the capacity of thinking. The more words you have, the better and more precise descriptions and reasoning's you can do.
Secondly, language not only serve to a pragmatic use, but to a artistic use too. Arte is very important in our society. If you limit the language you make art impossible. Lots of works of art are based in the complexity of their language (trust me, I'm an Spanish native speaker so I know about difficult languages hahaha)
I believe culture is not related that much to the national language, although it may seems like that. I'm sure that our society could be multicultural even under the domination of only one language. Now, when it comes to the maintance of each country's culture, I believe that, indeed, chauvinisme is the principal reason, that is observed at most of the people. When people become nationalists, then they stop thinking logically, when it comes to their culture, and act egoistically. However, national culture can keep its importance without damaging that much society, if people start thinking of their culture as "a piece of a pie that they are looking from the outside, not the inside". Objective thought and collective spirit is the only way for multiculturalisme to exist.
I think that language is not something that controls our mind, so the reduction of it doesn't mean the reduction of the human thought. Besides, the need of a language is prooved scientifically to exist in human's DNA. It should be kept as simple as possible. Different meanings do not necessarily have to be given via synonyms, a good organization can be enough. (f.e. There are three species of cats. The one is called Drabo, the second Logo and the third Jumbo. However, it is simplier to call them the red cat, the cat of Egypt and the pink-eyed cat, without having to create new words. That is my point!)
It's true that somy forms of art demand the complexity of the language. However, I think art fits anywhere, and would find it's position even if the language was much simplier. It would just find, as always, a more deep way to be expressed.
I continue to believe that the opinions of most people about culture, language e.t.c. is not an opinion that they created after some logic thinking, but something they inherited from their ancestors.
I am interested for your answer!
(I uploaded by mistake at the comments :D)
I disagree with you in this topic. You stated that language isn't that much related to culture but actually language is one of the main items of cultural identity.
The Cambridge dictionary defines culture as "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time". Languages, as you can empirically prove, are a critical part of someone's way of life. So language is culture.
That being said, I don't believe that chauvinism is the reason why culture is important. Culture protection and logical thinking can coexist. But if you take away culture from the people, they will no longer have an identity. Culture is one of the things that makes us humans and not animals.
A reduced version of my argument against your statement:
Languages is a main part of culture
Ergo, without language there's no culture.
Culture makes us humans
Ergo, without culture we are not humans
Conclusion: taking away language is taking away humannes obviously we don't want that!!!
Also, putting in practice what you proposed would be pretty impossible. Firstly, not all people would have the possibility of learning that global language, thus you will segregate a part of the population. Moreover, as you can observe if you read the history of humans' languages, It's normal that in a big territory with only one language, different dialects appear. For instance, in Spain there are people talking Spanish, but also Català and Galego. Provided that the globe is way bigger than Spain or any other territory where dialects have appeared, there will be dialects originating from this "global language". Thus, there would be no global language, but plenty of different languages, just like now.
We use language to think and we can't think without language. Then, the one who controls our language controls our thinking indirectly. This is another reason why a unique language isn't appealing.
I understand your example of the cats, but I don't agree. In that case, the reduced language would be useful, I accept that. But that example is way too basic. For instance, lets take 2 different dogs breads (just to keep the thing in the animals plane hahaha): Irish terrier and Lakeland terrier. They are similar dogs but they are also quite different. If you had to name this dog with a reduced language it would be something like: the bearded dog with less hair in the body and the bearded dog with more hair in the body. As you can see this would be very unpractical, although those names would have to be even larger in order to precisely identify them between all the breads. If this is unpractical with dogs, you can imagine how unpractical it would be with more complex things.
You accept that art demands a complex language, but then you say without it, art would find a way of expressing. However the only thing that we can prove of those two is the first one, You can't prove that art will find a way.
I agree that our antecesors play a significant role on what we believe. Nevertheless, I believe this isn't something avoidable. When we perceive things we are comparing them with what we already experienced in order to classify that new thing. This means that all our perceptions are influenced by our previous experiences. Then, we can't think in an objective way. We will always be influenced by our cultural programming and our previous experiences. That being said, what you say as horrible isn't that bad, even your opinions about language and culture are biased.
Looking forward to read your other ideas about religion, agnosticism and so on...
BakaliarosJrJr forfeited this round.
Provided that Con forfeited last round, I can't argument anything.
BakaliarosJrJr forfeited this round.
Con forfeited. Nothing more to say.....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.