Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Linguistic relativity

TSH
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:11:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am becoming convinced that all disagreements and debates are a consequence of language.

C1) All humans are inherently rational/logical (ie no one denies that 1+1=2 or that certain mathematical proofs are valid)
C2) If humans were to communicate in a logical/formal language, then there would be no disagreements/debates (see http://en.wikipedia.org...).
C3) Therefore, disagreements and debates are entirely based upon semantics.

One question that I had is whether or not certain concepts exist that can only be expressed in languages such as English instead of in systematic, formal systems and if so, whether or not these concepts are epistomologically meaningful. I am leaning towards these concepts being unimportant and am interested in what other people think. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
~tsh
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:26:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello, I'm FREEDO. And I deny everything you think is true.

But I thoroughly enjoy your point. I think you'd do well to ask yourself a few questions and take a long time to answer them:
1. Is language, how it's commonly understood, even possible?
2. What is the effect of language on the way that we organize our thoughts and what is thought in the absence of language?

Chip-chip-cheerio.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TSH
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:30:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:26:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Hello, I'm FREEDO. And I deny everything you think is true.

But I thoroughly enjoy your point. I think you'd do well to ask yourself a few questions and take a long time to answer them:
1. Is language, how it's commonly understood, even possible?

Language could be considered to be "possible." Why would it not be possible?

2. What is the effect of language on the way that we organize our thoughts and what is thought in the absence of language?

By definition, thought in the absence of language is impossible. However, I think it is possible to have thought within a formal language system that effectively prevents any communication errors.


Chip-chip-cheerio.
~tsh
TSH
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:31:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:30:42 AM, TSH wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:26:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Hello, I'm FREEDO. And I deny everything you think is true.

But I thoroughly enjoy your point. I think you'd do well to ask yourself a few questions and take a long time to answer them:
1. Is language, how it's commonly understood, even possible?

Language could be considered to be "possible." Why would it not be possible?

2. What is the effect of language on the way that we organize our thoughts and what is thought in the absence of language?

By definition, thought in the absence of language is impossible. However, I hypothesize it is possible to have thought within a formal language system that effectively prevents any communication errors.


Chip-chip-cheerio.
~tsh
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:50:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:30:42 AM, TSH wrote:
Language could be considered to be "possible." Why would it not be possible?

As is often the case with my questions, the point is not the questions themselves. But the introduced necessity to question the premises of the question. Which, if followed down the chain of thought deep enough, reveals the answer to the question that I would have asked if I were being more direct, while such a question, on it's own, would wield no bounty.

For clarification, I could suggest to you that, when I ask such a questions, and your reply is a another question, you should instead answer it yourself with whatever seems to make it make sense. Then you'll start to understand my premise.

So. Why would it not be possible? You tell me.

By definition, thought in the absence of language is impossible. However, I think it is possible to have thought within a formal language system that effectively prevents any communication errors.

And what is your definition language?

I think one should be careful when making strict distinctions based on a difference in literalism and practicalism. There is what a word means and then there is what a word actually does.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TSH
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:11:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"So. Why would it not be possible? You tell me."

Empirically, language is based upon neurochemical interactions in the brain. I am unable to imagine why it might not be possible. I consider the brain to be so complex a system that chaos theory applies, making it difficult to answer the question of why or why not language is possible from a theoretical standpoint instead of empirically.

"And what is your definition language?"

A system of communication - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I meant that unless thoughts can be communicated, they cannot be objectively quantified or qualified, rendering thoughts useless and for all practical intents and purposes, nonexistent and undetectable.
~tsh
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:02:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:11:43 AM, TSH wrote:
I am becoming convinced that all disagreements and debates are a consequence of language.

C1) All humans are inherently rational/logical (ie no one denies that 1+1=2 or that certain mathematical proofs are valid)
C2) If humans were to communicate in a logical/formal language, then there would be no disagreements/debates (see http://en.wikipedia.org...).
C3) Therefore, disagreements and debates are entirely based upon semantics.

One question that I had is whether or not certain concepts exist that can only be expressed in languages such as English instead of in systematic, formal systems and if so, whether or not these concepts are epistomologically meaningful. I am leaning towards these concepts being unimportant and am interested in what other people think. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

You're assuming humans use logic as a means of reaching some form of truth. They don't.

http://www.nytimes.com...

(this assumes logic and reason to be two terms meaning essentially the same thing)

Disagreements are based upon the use of logic...it's what it's there for.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:16:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:30:42 AM, TSH wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:26:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Hello, I'm FREEDO. And I deny everything you think is true.

But I thoroughly enjoy your point. I think you'd do well to ask yourself a few questions and take a long time to answer them:
1. Is language, how it's commonly understood, even possible?

Language could be considered to be "possible." Why would it not be possible?

2. What is the effect of language on the way that we organize our thoughts and what is thought in the absence of language?

By definition, thought in the absence of language is impossible.

By what definition?

However, I think it is possible to have thought within a formal language system that effectively prevents any communication errors.


Chip-chip-cheerio.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:41:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:11:43 AM, TSH wrote:
I am becoming convinced that all disagreements and debates are a consequence of language.

C1) All humans are inherently rational/logical (ie no one denies that 1+1=2 or that certain mathematical proofs are valid)
C2) If humans were to communicate in a logical/formal language, then there would be no disagreements/debates (see http://en.wikipedia.org...).
C3) Therefore, disagreements and debates are entirely based upon semantics.

One question that I had is whether or not certain concepts exist that can only be expressed in languages such as English instead of in systematic, formal systems and if so, whether or not these concepts are epistomologically meaningful. I am leaning towards these concepts being unimportant and am interested in what other people think. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, humans are not "inherently ration/logical" and if your entire case is dependent upon that point... >.<
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
TSH
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:44:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"You're assuming humans use logic as a means of reaching some form of truth. They don't. http://www.nytimes.com...; -malcolmxy

The fact that they may not currently use logic as a means for reaching some form of truth is irrelevant, insofar as they are capable of doing so. In fact, that is the whole point of linguistic relativity: English is the barrier preventing the expression of logical concepts and emphasizing the esoteric, at the expense of comprehension. Indeed, this is the reason that not everyone can understand complex poetry.

"Disagreements are based upon the use of logic...it's what it's there for." -malcolmxy

I agree. However, just because this is so does not mean that it has to be so; in a formal language system, it would be impossible to think in nonlogical, nonsensical terms as they would not be included in the language. Consequently, disagreements would also be impossible or at the very least, could be objectively resolved in the same way as disagreements in other logical fields (such as mathematics).

"By what definition? However, I think it is possible to have thought within a formal language system that effectively prevents any communication errors." -Sidewalker

Given that you agree with the basic premise of my argument, do you also agree that any concepts which are inexpressible in such a language are epistomoglically meaninglessness? To this end, will the creation of such a formal language allow humanity to make epistemological strides and make obsolete debating?

"No, humans are not "inherently ration/logical" and if your entire case is dependent upon that point... >.<" -Eitan_Zohar

This is a perfect example of the problems inherent in non formal languages: the point that I meant to convey was one of the inherent possibility of humans to be rational/logical. I am hypothesizing that all who can understand the basic, algorithmic concept of a substitution can learn a formal language and that by doing so, all misunderstandings might be averted, allowing episitomological progress to be made.

The one potential problem I foresaw has gone unanswered; I take it that any concepts inexpressible in a formal language are unimportant.
~tsh
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:30:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:26:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Hello, I'm FREEDO. And I deny everything you think is true.

But I thoroughly enjoy your point. I think you'd do well to ask yourself a few questions and take a long time to answer them:
1. Is language, how it's commonly understood, even possible?

The Fool: You couldn't ask that question if you didn't understand it that far?
The confusion is caused by the question, For it is begged when you ask it. Or rather proven they fact that you asked it.

For the very question was THE ANSWER!

The confusion is caused by the fact that you HAVE PAST BY IT ALREADY. So you wander, chasing it when you past in by already. Like clown bear on his mini-tricycle, which is always curved to one side, so that he spines in little circles wondering why its an infinite regress. Around and around he goes.

(The Fool: (Number 2 is two easy too*2)*2. We use language to categories our thoughts, Like and index, but our thoughts are not dependent upon language.

PROOF: Tip of the tongue Phenomenon:
If you have ever had a moment in which you were thinking of something but could not remember the name, then you have at first hand recognized that you have conception with no word. A neuro-scientist would that is happens when there is a mis-connection in your PHONOLOGICAL LOOP.

So thought does not depend on language, but rather we have a better time understanding what someone else is thinking if they speak in a way that we are used to. But that is a REALITY vs RECOGNITION Fallacy.
For what we recognize, is not the same as WHAT IS.
But we have all had things we have wanted to say BUT COULD NOT FIND THE RIGHT WORDS TO EXPRESS IT.

Similarly(as far as psychology is concerned) a baby understands 50 words, for 1 word it can speak.)*2
Or at least that's the word on the hill, take it for what its worth.

<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: I almost forget, there was a lot to take into account.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:02:32 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:11:43 AM, TSH wrote:
I am becoming convinced that all disagreements and debates are a consequence of language.

C1) All humans are inherently rational/logical (ie no one denies that 1+1=2 or that certain mathematical proofs are valid)
C2) If humans were to communicate in a logical/formal language, then there would be no disagreements/debates (see http://en.wikipedia.org...).
C3) Therefore, disagreements and debates are entirely based upon semantics.

One question that I had is whether or not certain concepts exist that can only be expressed in languages such as English instead of in systematic, formal systems and if so, whether or not these concepts are epistomologically meaningful. I am leaning towards these concepts being unimportant and am interested in what other people think. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

You're assuming humans use logic as a means of reaching some form of truth. They don't.

The Fool: FALSE THAT IS THE ONLY REASON, The Concept is used, if you are the term LOGIC to refer to something else, then you are Talking about a different concept. It doesn't matter if you use the same word. The Term doesn't Necessary carry the conception with it.

Its does not follow that you are having the a different view, of the same thing. if you have a different definition or use a and all you have done is CUT YOUR SELF FROM COMMUNICATION with the other person.

http://www.nytimes.com...<<<<------((((CIRCULAR))
Because there very claim is depended on it.

Warning the following statement is to be read s.l.o.w.l.y. for many, but no body in particular.

Its a trixy, Ipse dixit anyway you mix it.
<(8J)

(this assumes logic and reason to be two terms meaning essentially the same thing)

Hint: the meaning of a word is the IDEA invested in it by the speaker. For someone could never be wrong about what they mean. (although it may be irrational)
or they could be deceptive. But it is when it travels from the them to the INTERPRETER< then error becomes a factor. Ask Polaris. It always becomes something new for him.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:16:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This doesn't even account for person A (for example) having different knowledge than person B when conversing.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)