The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[LogicWings]

Drama is the highest form of art. Art is play, and so it could include play with language. Drama would also include dance, music, chorale, architecture, and representative arts.

Ok, we have a series of opinions here. Drama could include all those things but doesn’t necessarily. Even if it does, doesn’t mean that it is the highest form, if it is dependent upon other elements, such a logic.

The source of language is the spoken word.

Actually, not so. The source of language is the ability to create metaphors. The mind’s ability to represent one ‘thing’ with another symbolic ‘thing’ is the true source of language. The result is language which is symbolic metaphor.

How it then becomes represented in symbols such as arrangements of ink and ASCII code is a matter for linguists.

You can kiss it off to that field if you wish but I‘m not so lazy. Many other philosophers and economists also have addressed this field because it has more importance than you relegate it here. It is a matter of how our minds work, processes information, and I’m not leaving that to anybody else. Epistemology is one of the most important fields there is. Try and explain anything without relying upon it. Or upon logic.

There are two sides to experience--the rational and the aesthetic.

False dichotomy. There are many facets to experience, more than just those two sides. And I admit no separation among any of them. Anymore than there is any separation of a single diamond simply because it splits the white light of the sun’s spirit into a rainbow of colors. I incorporate the rational, the emotional, the aesthetic and the spiritual all in my being and consciousness all at the same time. If others can’t do this, that is their problem.

Art by nature is heavily aesthetic.

Ok, (I don’t agree, I don’t even know what you mean by ’heavily’, but if I accept your premise) follow the next sentences.

Is language then a heavily rational complement to art? Does logic have anything to do with language?

Now, I ask you, define aesthetic without resorting to logic. Identify the concept in a manner that is in common so that anyone can understand it, without resorting to the A is A requirements of logic.

So the answer is, of course it does, it is the basis of language.

Without the A is A metaphor that relates the word aesthetic to the high level abstract represented by that word, it would have no meaning. The A that is represented by all the elements you described: dance, music, chorale, architecture, (and you forgot language)

is all represented by the A that is the word drama.

At this point I would say language uses logic as drama uses painted backdrops--it's incidental to the main presentation.

Without logic there would be no main presentation at all. None of it would have any meaning since all meaning is metaphor and all metaphor is logic. In other words, there would be NoThing. There would be no drama.

Thus logic is the stage, the curtains, the words, the script, the backdrop, the notes that make up the score, the position of the dancers, the number of steps they take for each bar of music, the placement of the nails that holds up the backdrop so it doesn’t fall down, and more important than anything you mentioned - the timing, moment by moment, of the script, of who walks on and says what when that requires a complete identity of each player, part, tune and moment to properly construct the ultimate production.

[Bon mots]

Bump for reading later... when I wake up...

[LogicWings]

you accuse Chomsky of being deficient in logic -- one of the few areas in which he is universally acknowledged to be an expert.

Depends upon you who ask. Chomsky is not universally acknowledged by many to be anything but a socialist idiot. Try the former socialist, now conservative, David Horowitz for an example.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/

As for your response to my sarcasm, I can only hope you get a life someday. Sarcasm is a reasoned response.

The last year of my life has been absolutely incredible, which is why none of you have the least affect on me. If you knew what my life currently was, you would be embarrased by this comment.

As a young man I was very sarcastic and lost many friends because of it. It is a mark of insecurity. I have gladly given it up and am far better off for it, and I would recommend the same to you. You will be much happier for it, please believe me.

[unspun]

Ohh,? You don't need metaphoric symbology for that? The 'intention' to 'do' something isn't a metaphoric construct from past experience that a given 'cause' resulted in a given 'effect' and that 'metaphorically' such cause and effect will be implied, by metaphor, to the next 'intention'?

You stretch the definition of metaphor. "Ouch! Hot!" has no necessity to be a metaphor. It is sense, hopefully sense of reality.

[unspun]

See prior comment. I do not take the bait of being required to have the burden of proof.

[unspun]

Even if all our thoughts would require symbols to reflect upon "things" and we use a kind of "language" for all complex thoughts, that does not mean we think in language.

A juggler juggles objects outside of himself. His juggling is of them, not in them. What he does he does in himself.

So our intentions are made in one's intentional self, while they apply themselves to considerations, including all senses and concepts.

[Havoc]

Philosophy is nothing more than the art of talking people into believing something whether it be true or not. It is how we were cowed into accepting the argument of global warming. The conclusions drawn from an argument are only as good as the supporting statements or facts that go into the argument. As with Democrat spin, leave out the classified information the public is unaware of and the public can be led one way. Include classified data that democrats are aware of, and it shows them for the liars they are - as has been displayed since Bush took office. There are philosophers and there are sophists. And largely the two can't discern between themselves as there isn't much difference to be had among them. Boil it all down and it comes to this: Philosophy is the way that men artfully wrap their theories in flowery language to make people buy their conclusions without the benefit of any facts on which to stand - or from the philosopher's standpoint with the benefit of no facts to confront them and show them a liar.

One thing that Hitler used to great advantage is the notion that given a complex truth or a simple lie, it is easier to pass off the simple lie as people won't think hard enough to consider the complex truth. The bolder the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. And all walks fall prey to it out of laziness among other things. Civil law, religious doctrine, scientific theory.. sophistry. Kill all the lawyers? No. The point is lost - the aim was at sophistry and the lawyers were just good example of it. Get the sophists and you may still find some lawyers about - they'll be the ones you could trust with your wife and your money. Ok, maybe just your money. I'm with my cousin in that regard, I'll trust a man with my money or my life but never with my wife. lol

[unspun]

Philosophy, properly applied is exactly that which eliminates lies, provided one maintains true fundamentals. The scientific process subsumes it.

[Havoc]

That is the argument from philosophers. The truth is demonstrably different in that religion is philosophy, There are thousands of different religious theories out their competing and, given their conclusions, they cannot and are not all correct. Yet their philosophies, well argued though they may be, all claim to be true. To these people just as in science and politics, truth is in the eye of the beholder. And no truth is more sacred than the one they agreed to and decided to believe. When blind belief is the ultimate driving force, factual certainty is not relevant. Global warming, the assumption of Mary, devotions to Budha, little winged men on the moon, Prosperity through taxation... these are all philosophical theory and the only thing that differentiates one from another for believability is the approach and the mindset.
One is about as believeable as the next as they all lack any real foundation other than opinion. Yet they are all sacred cows in one way or another. One can name these things off readily and near infinitely. These just popped right off the top of my head. We can all generate endless lists of these things that are believed, but have no real basis in fact. They are "holy" opinion which cannot be so readily dismissed by the groups that believe them. And that is the travesty of which we are warned about of the sophists. "learned opinion" can be sold to anyone lazy enough not to bother with details and the facts on the ground. This is why hitler got by with as much as he did.

[unspun]

Thanks for your concern. I'll go by what was "seen by our own eyes," as John the son of Zebedee said.

Falsities hardly disprove a truth, by their conflicting statements.

[Havoc]

When supposition is the basis for calling something truth, it is not truth, it is supposition. Whatever opposes it at that level nee not arise any higher than supposition in order to beg the level of believability. Any fact opposing said supposition would become the immoveable force by which said supposition could not pass into believeability; but, often does anyway through repeating the supposition as fact and ignoring opposing facts or suppositions. This is called fallacy. But the art of raising fallacy to be regarded as truth is the modality of philosophy and thusly termed sophistry. I realize that pees on your wheaties; but, that's not my problem.

[unspun]

Don't worry H, I'm a toasted oats man. Here, someone with your interests might enjoy the books listed here.

[Havoc]

Don't need Arguments for Christianity. Already have that settled in my life. We're talking about philosophy. Christianity and philosophical thought are incompatible. Something the errant are too blind and rebellious to see or understand. Oh well, enjoy the oats, I like 'em too with a little Sorgum Molasses ;)

[unspun]

We agree on oats and sorgum. Christianity provides a metaphysical basis for the logic and observation of philosophy. I'll grant you philosophy as used throughout the ages (especially the modern age) on the other hand provides many means of conflicting sound premeses and logic both.

[LogicWings]

You stretch the definition of metaphor. "Ouch! Hot!" has no necessity to be a metaphor. It is sense, hopefully sense of reality.

No, I don't stretch it at all. You don't understand how your own mind works. It is all metaphor, everything you think you know is a metaphor mapping of reality by your brain - to the reality that is 'out there.'

The 'concept' of "ouch" and "hot" IS a metaphor for the experience of sensation. THAT is the point. You cannot deny this without relying upon the very concepts, the very same metaphors, that are needed to assert the denial. THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

All concepts of "cause and effect" are, by definition, metaphors. And there is no action that you, as an individual, can take, that doesn't imply reliance upon this metaphor.

This is Absolute, and Absolutely dependent upon logic.

If I drink water I will survive,
If I don't I will die,
Therefore, to survive I will drink water.

Every day of your life, every decision you make, implies both the metaphor of concept and logic. If you step in front of the truck you die, If you ask the girl out - you might get laid, If you ask the boss for a raise you might get more money, If you pray to God He might save your soul, If you quit your job you might become homeless.

If Then, If Then, If Then,
All metaphors, all logic.

To use your example

Why do I care if anything is "hot" or "ouch"?

That means that I have prior experience that contacting such a thing will result in "hot" or "ouch".

The cause and effect metaphor comes into play, (since the prior experience didnt' kill you,) and I postulate that,

This is "hot"
Hot things make me "ouch"
Therefore, If I touch this, I will "ouch"

This is all metaphor.

In the final analysis, the subject is epistemology. It is the most important, and neglected, branch of science, and philosophy.
How we know what we know, and this is most of what you miss.

That, is the problem.

[unspun]

No, I don't stretch it at all. You don't understand how your own mind works. It is all metaphor, everything you think you know is a metaphor mapping of reality by your brain - to the reality that is 'out there.'

That gets to be an ontological question as well as epistemologic. I don't agree that one can make the inductive leap that you make and call it a law of knowledge.

Knowledge is relational and I believe it may be shown that relationships and the knowledge involved in them run beyond what we understand as the physical functioning of the brain.

But, thank you for spelling out your own belief about knowledge.

[GigaDittos]

Thinking is basically 'consideration' in action.

[GigaDittos]

Maybe the language which he may have thought in, were pictures of the words he was thinking of.

[GigaDittos]

How about sexy! Hot!

[TigerTale]

I believe f.Christian is no longer exploring semantic creativity on FR

Nobody by that name.

---