The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[unspun]

An objective look into thought and language, subjective to the reality behind the curtain of popular fallacy held by many thinkers and theorists for generations. Sensible as well as logical, I think. Therefore, I'll summon the words to say it is quite thoughtful... well expressed in words, too.

This may not stir a lengthy debate here, but I thought I'd post it as something to refer to from time to time, for the meditation of course. I admit it is "deep." Deeper perhaps than many would want to think....

[maestro]

ROTFLOL,........ROTFLOL,........ROTFLOL,......

[fifteendogs]

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

[supercat]

I tend to regard thinking as being a pseudo-sensory process. Since verbal language is one form of sensory perception, some thinking can be done in that form. Thinking may also be done in written form, non-linguistic visual forms, musical form, non-musical non-verbal audio forms, tactile forms, etc.

[maestro]

Right,......and don't forget the 'Christian Science' scientists.

/sarcasm

[Lorianne]

Some interesting concepts in this piece though I admit much of it is over my head. I've often wondered if we do sometimes think without symbols. I believe I do in the spatial sense, but not in other areas.

[RightWhale]

that logic is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language

Logos - word. Logic - word. Legis - word. Law - word. In the beginning, etc. Law, logic, and word. Same old same-o.

[maestro]

Right!.......language w/out syntax and interpersonal 'relationships'....!!

/sarcasm

[expatpat]

Like a great deal of philosophy, it reminds of a line from Macbeth:

"..it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Servant of the Nine]

An objective look into thought and language,

If you want objective, read " Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics" by Alfred Korzybski.
This paper is nothing but subjective twaddle.

So9

[per loin]

How come ya didn include da pictuers?

[unspun]

I thought you might want to give this some thought. You may even wish to find the words to express what you think.

[RightWhale]

Need your help and insight over here. Are we limited in thinking by our language structure?

[unspun]

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

I take them into account fairly easily, after a good deal of thought. ;-`

Then what is understanding?

[freedumb2003]

Shouldn't this be under Breaking News?

;)

[katnip]

Oops, this is obviously not a Computer Programming Language thread.

[AlbionGirl]

This illustrates perfectly why I love Nietchze (sp?) and detest the others.

I really like it when he referred to J.S. Mills as a 'blockhead'. My philosophy professor went beserk when I expressed my agreement with the blockhead comment. Being the animal rights person that he was though, he did go on to laud Nietchze for dying in service to his horse.

I'm basically with expat, and Macbeth and all that.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

This following might interest you, although it is a bit long-winded at times:

A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness, by Merlin Donald

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

See my post 18

[Mike Darancette]

Deeper perhaps than many would want to think....

I'm thinking about it now and I'm thinking without the use of any language ...... but usually when I do this my Doctors say I'm acting autistic.