The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[Under the Radar]

I was 35 when I first learned to speak and write the english language, I am 65 now. Prior to learning your language, I communicated exclusively by way of telepathy.

Excellent! So go collect your million dollars.

[FITZ]

I was 35 when I first learned to speak and write the english language,

Did you speak a foreign language or no language?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up on your post!

Having had several engaging conversations with you on other threads, and having perused the links you’ve posted to The Autonomist, your reaction is not at all surprising to me. The self lies at the heart of the doctrine and is the power, domain and the end of it:

The Autonomist Notebook

"No man is an island," is a lie. An island is exactly what a man is, what every man is. When someone uses this quote as an argument, be sure he is preparing to invade your island, and if he is successful, the bells will surely toll for thee.

It simply would not do, under that doctrine, for the self to be in subordination.

Nevertheless, there are many of us who know the self to be an extreme subordination of all that there is. To us, it is a joy to free the mind and explore that which cannot be expressed by language. Many times, the journey is spiritual. But also many times the journey is theoretical, such as in math, geometry and physics.

I strongly suggest this ability to leap beyond language is what empowered the likes of Einstein. That view is substantiated by his own remark:

"These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward."

Certainly there are many analytical scientists who work with that which is already known, i.e. has been expressed by language. And many of them open new doors and build onto that which known. But the astonishing leaps in science, IMHO, occur when the scientist is not “grounded” by his language.

Likewise, your endearment of knowledge - and besmirching of imaginings - is not surprising based the Autonomist doctrine. But again, it runs counter to the greatest mind known to me. Einstein said:

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

You are certainly welcome your views of man as an island, the supremacy of self and the elevation of knowledge, logic and reason. But I strongly suggest that labeling the thought disciplines of Einstein as insane does not reflect favorably on your doctrine:

To promote a non-linguistic form of consciousness is to promote a kind of insanity. A non-linguistic consciousness is appropriate to the irrational animals, in human beings, it is sickness.

[dark_lord]

Is imagining thinking? Can you remember a tree from your childhood and imagine climbing it? Can you do so without narrating your imagined actions with words, just climb it in your mind? Would you then be thinking?

What goes through your head can be roughly defined as remembering, or imagining, or symbol manipulating. Imagining includes "imaging" which is just viewing pictures in your head. And remembering covers all aspects of memory - which can include remembering sense experiences, or remembering previous sessions of imagining (including imaging), or rememberings previous sessions of symbol manipulation.

For the author to go on at length to say -- hey, other stuff happens in your head besides symbol manipulation (which includes language) is rather obvious. But he then asserts that much thinking does not involve symbol manipulation. Now, of the 3 categories identified, one can admit that imagining is also thinking, and it may not involve symbol manipulation. Thus I can visually rearrange the furniture in my living room, or visualize a painting before I create it; and I will concede this is "thought". But to then assert as this author does that all thinking occurs without language is rather a step. For often much of my personal thinking is along the lines of "if I do this, then will that happen? And if so, and I do this other thing, will that follow? Okay, lets try this strategy..." etc.

To state that this thinking does not involve language is merely to push it up a level and say that something is happening in the brain (or somewhere) before putting together these logic strings. And of course in the brain we are talking about some kind of neuronic functioning which happens before these verbal thought strings get created. But to assert I could rationally analyze some logical alternatives without using symbols (language) is unproved. Try to do a math problem without "language" (for mathematics is expressed in language.)

[RightWhale]

The thread is becoming something interesting in FreeRepublic. Free discussion of ideas and ideals with a minimum of flaming lets some place a few of their long-held questions out there for consideration. These are questions that were answered with only a withering stare from the philosophy prof years ago and thereafter burrowed deep for protection from the caustic atmosphere of publicity. Who knows where the questions, the thoughts came from: probably through the internal process of linking isolated concepts presented in various venues including philosophy class. But are the links good, is the value of the links known, are the links true--or breakfast sausage?

[D-fendr]

An ascendant experience in thought

Ha!

Unless, one imagines, the bough breaks…

[headsonpikes]

'Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'.

Wittgenstein's dictum still holds, unless one is satisfied with speaking nonsense.

IMO.

[unspun]

Some people have too much time on their hands. This person needs a hobby, and or a life.

From what I've seen, he's got a great deal of life. People base the most important decisions of their lives upon what we accede to and how we come to believe what we believe. Others attack such bases of understanding. Dallas Willard has shown here how it is absurd to claim that man's thoughts are some language-based phenomenon developed only through some kind of naturalistic process. That is a part of the wool that "naturalist" or "objectivist" (God obviating) people have been pulling over some people's eyes for centuries now.

Isn't it refreshing when the truth stares you in the face and it is seen as the simple truth and one can agree with it?

Also, isn't it refreshing to understand that there is more to our lives than the only kinds of things we can master for ourselves?

[unspun]

'Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'.

Then by his "whereof," it would seem he acceded that there are concepts we may have, which are then difficult to apply words to. Something has to be there, to be "where."

[unspun]

To state that this thinking does not involve language is merely to push it up a level and say that something is happening in the brain (or somewhere) before putting together these logic strings. And of course in the brain we are talking about some kind of neuronic functioning which happens before these verbal thought strings get created.

First you say "in the brain (or somewhere)" and then you return to the brain only (presumably because you can see a brain and manipulate one physically).

The author is simply stating that thinking the process of mind which manipulates any symbols we decide to conceptualize. Furthermore, the concepts themselves and other elements of congnition (feelings, conceptual causes and effects) may exist without resorting to specific symbols.

[unspun]

Egocentism is itself, a fallacy. I think one can say it is the fallacy.

[headsonpikes]

"Something has to be there..."

But is it a 'thought'.

For instance, a person may 'experience' an epiphany, wherein he 'sees' a connection between everything - 'The Allness of the Oneness', or contrapuntally, 'The Oneness of the Allness' kind of hooey.

Millions of words have been written and spoken about these sorts of 'mental events', but only meta-statements about such utterances can have any sense.

I'll stick with Mr. W., on this issue. ;^)

[unspun]

And Pascal has said, as has been pointed out recently, "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not."

[LibKill]

How do you take into consideration those people who are telepathic. They have no language, they only have understanding.

Telepathy is cruelty itself.

Trust me, you don't want to experience my thoughts.

[thinktwice]

That is a part of the wool that "naturalist" or "objectivist" (God obviating) people have been pulling over some people's eyes for centuries now.

What you don't know about Objectivism fills volumes that you have not -- and probably will not -- read; volumes that philosophically outclass even Aristotle in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and esthetics.

This thread, for instance, is about concepts -- a matter of epistemolgy; an absolutely eye (and mind) opening subject within the Ayn Rand book titled "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."

Believe it or not, I've presented you with a pearl.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested." Francis Bacon, "Of Studies"

[Hank Kerchief]

You are certainly welcome to your views of man as an island, the supremacy of self and the elevation of knowledge, logic and reason.

Thank you for allowing me to have my views.

The insistance that the uniqueness of human consciousness is the ability to choose and reason conceptually in no way limits or repudiates the volitional use of conscious imaging called imagination. While all animals apparently re-image (may kitties dream), what they are not able to do, is by use of rationally directed choice, control that imaging to invent a light bulb, a steam engine, a theory of quantum mechanics, or, in my kitty's case, a nice trap for catching tasty birds. This kind of "imagination," is only possible to a rational intellect.

It is frequently the case that people use their intellect without understanding what they are doing. This is especially true of those with highly but narrowly developed intellects, such as Einstein, who was, outside his specialty, often not far from an idiot.

But I strongly suggest that labeling the thought disciplines of Einstein as insane does not reflect favorably on your doctrine.

Doctrine?

You are a trip.

In any case, you must know by now, an autonomist considers how anything "reflects" on what he believes is totally irrelavent and inconsequential. The arbiter of truth is not others opinions or how things "reflect" on ideas. The only arbiter of truth is reality. It will not matter a fig if the entire world laughs at and repudiates what one believes if it is the truth.

Hank

[Lorianne]

The idea that only what you deem "useful" to you constitutes thought is laughable.

[Eastbound]

I think I'll bump this for later.

[Hank Kerchief]

The thread is becoming something interesting in FreeRepublic. Free discussion of ideas and ideals with a minimum of flaming ...

Actually I have enjoyed several very long threads where there were very strong opinions very graciously expressed throughout. Mostly these have been good philosophical discussions.

I have a philosophy "ping," that I use to alert those interested in those kinds of discussions when one is started. If you'd be interested, I'll add you to the list.

Since this thread is somewhat interesting, I'll ping some others now and see what happens.

Hank

[unspun]

And thank you A-G for exploring the critical process of the imagination --and providing a fuller context of the Einstein quote I 'found' across from the mens room wall when it came time to consider imagination* a few weeks ago: “I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” ;-`

And it follows, the most creative mentality of all is one which intentionally forms imaginings and processes of thought, resorting to neither what we call "matter," nor symbols gained by it.
______________________________________________________
* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844288/posts?page=1001#1016
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844288/posts?page=1237#1237