The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[unspun]

The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

This paper has been read to the University of Southern California philosophy group and the Boston 1972 meeting of the American Philosophical Association, as well as to the Houston meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society. Appeared in The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, IV(1973), pp. 125-132. Numbers in "<>" refer to this journal.

---

Among the principal assumptions of major portions of philosophy in recent decades have been: (1) That philosophy somehow consists of (some sort of) logic, and (2) that logic is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language. There, of course, follows from these a third assumption: (3) That philosophy is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language--though this implication should not be taken as representing any phase of the historical development of recent philosophizing. Instead of listing these three points as assumptions, it would probably be more correct to regard them as categories or complexes of assumptions; or perhaps, more vaguely still, as 'tendencies' or proclivities of recent philosophical thinking. But precision of these points need not be put in issue here, as this paper does not seek any large-scale resolution of the problem area in question. The aim here is to examine only one proposition which plays a role in the clearly existent tendencies referred to: Namely, the proposition that we think in or with language. I hope to show, first, that we do not always think in or with language; and then, second, that the very conception of thinking in or with language involves an absurdity. What implications this has for broader philosophical assumptions or tendencies will not be dealt with here, though the implications in question seem to me to be extremely important ones. That human beings think in language is explicitly stated in such diverse places as ordinary newspapers, the more sophisticated popular magazines and journals, and serious discourse in the humanities and the social sciences, as well as in the technical writings of philosophers. To prove this broad range of consensus would be idle; but, in order to have the philosophical context clearly before us, we may give a few brief quotations. <126>       (1) Man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it: the thinking which becomes conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof. And, we may say, the worst part:--for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. (Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, sub-sec. # 354)      (2) Let no one be contemptuous of symbols! A good deal depends upon a practical selection of them. Furthermore, their value is not diminished by the fact that after much practice, we no longer really need to call forth a symbol, we do not need to speak out loud in order to think. The fact remains that we think in words or, when not in words, then in mathematical or other symbols. (Frege, Mind, Vol. 73, p. 156)      (3) It is misleading then to talk of thinking as of a 'mental activity'. We may say that thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs. This activity is performed by the hand, when we think by writing; by the mouth and larynx, when we think by speaking; and if we think by imagining signs or pictures, I can give you no agent that thinks. If then you say that in such cases the mind thinks, I would only draw your attention to the fact that you are using a metaphor, that here the mind is an agent in a different sense from that in which the hand can be said to be an agent in writing. (Wittgenstein, Blue Book, pp. 6-7)      (4) ... The woof and warp of all thought and all research is symbols, and the life of thought and science is the life inherent in symbols; so that it is wrong to say that a good language is important to good thought, merely; for it is of the essence of it. (C. S. Peirce, Collected Papers, II, p. 129)      (5) Words only matter because words are what we think with. (H. H. Price, Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. XIX, p. 7)      (6) Theorizing is an activity which most people can and normally do conduct in silence. They articulate in sentences the theories that they construct, but they do not most of the time speak these sentences out loud. They say them to themselves.... Much of our ordinary thinking is conducted in internal monologue or silent soliloquy, usually accompanied by an internal cinematograph-show of visual imagery.... This trick of talking to oneself in silence is acquired neither quickly nor without effort.... (Ryle, Concept of Mind, p. 27. See also pp. 282-83 and 296-97) <127>      (7)This helps to elucidate the well-known difficulty of thinking without words. Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself. Consider the way in which I 'thinkingly' wrote the last sentence. I can no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking (or some equivalent activity). (J.J.C. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, p. 89) These quotations will suffice to establish the context within which philosophers speak of thinking in language (or with language). Many other quotations could be added from the literature.1 It is not assumed here that the persons quoted all occupy the same position with reference to the relationship between thought and language. Yet it would be interesting to see what any of these thinkers, or others who suppose that human beings think in language, could save of their position from the critique which follows. Uneasiness about the conception of thinking in or with language has been expressed by a number of writers, but only over limited aspects of it.2 Here we shall consider arguments which purport to call the conception into question entirely and in principle. First, consider a reason for rejecting the view that we always think in language. It consists in the fact that thinking often occurs without the production, manipulation, or perception of sense-perceptible signs, without which there is no use of language. Such occurrences often provoke offers of 'A penny for your thoughts.' Thinking: Whatever we may decide to call them, and however it is that we are conscious of them, there are intentional states of persons, more or less fixed or fleeting, which do not require for their obtaining that what they are about or of be perceived by, or be impinging causally upon, the person involved. In order to think of3 Henry the Eighth, <128> of the first auto one owned, of the Pythagorean theorem, or of the Mississippi River, it is not required that they should disturb my nervous system. Such states (t-states) of persons are often called 'thoughts', especially in contrast with 'perceptions', and being in such a state is one of the things more commonly called 'thinking'. One no more needs to be going through a change of such states in order to be thinking, than he needs to be changing his bodily position in order to be sitting or lying or sleeping. Rarely if ever--as is alleged in the case of mystic contemplation--are these t-states unchanging. Usually they flow, at varying rates, intermingled with person states of many sorts, governed by such transitional structures as inference, goal orientation, objective structures given in perception or in other ways, and elemental association of 'ideas', among others. In what follows, we shall use 'thinking' to cover both the single t-state and the flow of such states, without regard to how intermingled with other person states. Language: Sense perceptible signs or symbols are an essential constituent of language. It is always false to say that language is present or in use where no signs are present or in use. And, whatever else a sign may be, it is something which is apprehendable via its sensible qualities. That is, it is something which can be either seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. Moreover, the use of language requires some level of actual sensuous apprehension of the signs which are in use on the occasion. (Confusion or distortion of this sensuous feedback can render a subject incapable of writing or speaking; and, of course, without perception of the sign-sequences emitted, one cannot understand the person emitting language.) Now cases can be produced almost at will where thinking occurs without language being present or in use. This, of course, is something which everyone--including the proponent of thinking-in-language--very well knows. It is these cases which, together with the assumption that we always think in language, create what in (7) was called "the well-known difficulty of thinking without words." If, as in (3), "thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs," then when there are no signs--and when, consequently, the means by which we produce, manipulate, or perceive signs are not functioning--we do have a difficulty. In fact, a difficulty so severe that it amounts to a proof that thinking is not essentially the activity of operating with signs, and that often we think entirely without language. One cannot operate with signs where there are no signs. <129>  As the above quotations indicate, the most common move made to save 'thinking in language' at this point is the shift to 'silent soliloquy,' as in (6), or to 'pieces of intelligent talking to oneself,' as in (7). These are latter-day shades of John Watson's 'sub-vocal language.' Of course one can talk to oneself or write to onself. But talking and writing to oneself require the production and perception of sensuous signs just as much as talking and writing to another. The realization of this is what drives the thinking-in-language advocate to silent soliloquy or to nonvocal speaking--the written counterpart of which would be invisible writing. That is, they are driven to flat absurdities. A silent soliloquy--that is, silent speaking--is precisely on a par with a silent trumpet solo, for example, or silent thunder. A poet may say:        Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard             Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;        Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,             Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone;...                (Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn) But there are in fact no unhearable melodies, no ears other than the "sensual," no ditties of no tone. What those who speak of silent discourse have in mind is, no doubt, the fact that interlaced with our thinking of or about things is a great deal of imaging of linguistic entities. (This is especially true of academics or intellectuals in general, because of their great concern with expression of thought. Probably an adequate phenomenology of thinking would exhibit great contrast between them and other classes of persons precisely at the relation between thinking and degree of activity in imaging linguistic entities and events.) But imaging a word is not using a word, any more than imaging a horse is using a horse. Moreover, imaging a word, phrase, or sentence is not producing or perceiving a word, phrase, or sentence any more than imaging a horse is producing or perceiving--or otherwise 'having'--a horse. To image a linguistic sequence is not to have it in a special sort of place--the mind--nor is it to have a special sort of linguistic sequence. To image is to exemplify a certain sort of thinking or intentional state, and a sort which does have interesting relationships with other kinds of thinking. But there is no reason at all to suppose that all kinds of thinking necessarily involve or are accompanied by this kind of thinking (imaging) directed upon language segments. And if there were, it still would not follow that all thinking requires language, since this kind of thinking about language segments is not itself language at all. Nor does it require any <130> language present in order for it to come to pass, since intentional inexistence applies to mental events when language segments are the objects, as well as when sticks and stones and animals are. Having considered a reason for rejecting the proposition that human beings always think in language, let us now consider whether they ever do. In fact, the difficulty is not, as Smart (above) and others have thought, in seeing how one can think without language, but in seeing how one would think with it. Thinking with or in language must consist in doing something with symbols, and so necessarily involves doing something to them--e.g., producing, altering, or perceiving them. If we would do something with the knife (e.g., cut the bread), we must do something to the knife, (e.g., clasp it in our hands). But, as we have seen, thinking occurs where nothing at all is being done to or with signs, there not being any signs in these cases. The power or act of having or changing t-states--that is, the power or act of thinking--is, then, not a power or act of having or altering linguistic symbols. (It is not, in fact, a power of doing anything with or in anything at all. The profound difference in kinds of powers and acts involved here is what Wittgenstein calls attention to in the last sentence of (3) above.) Thought is, of course, practical, in that it exercises an influence upon, or makes some difference in, the world of sense particulars. But it alone is not capable of acting with the sorts of particulars used in linguistic behavior as its immediate instruments. It is just this incapacity which makes it impossible for the advocates of thinking-in-language to give any account of the mechanisms or the 'how' by which the words in which we, allegedly, think are produced, manipulated, and gotten rid of--though they must be produced (or stored and hauled out), manipulated, and, in some sense, gotten rid of, if we are to think with and in them as our tools or instruments. Merely to ask the question of how, in detail, this is done in the course of thinking reveals, I believe, the absurdity of 'thinking in language'. Mere thinking can do nothing to signs which might be used in a language, and hence it can do nothing with such signs, or in the act of modifying the conditions of such signs. It is absurd to suppose that one can do x with y without in some way bringing about a change in the condition, state, relations, or properties of y. It is this and only this that I put by saying that it is absurd to suppose that one can do something with y while doing nothing to y. If it is replied that, of course, the mind or thought does not do these things, but that when we write, speak, hear, see, and otherwise relate to actual words in the actual employment of language, we then are thinking, with bodily parts managing the symbols involved, then it <131> must be pointed out that, while we may indeed also be thinking in such cases, we are not simply thinking. The total event here, to which language certainly is essential, is not thinking. Correct use of language can even occur, as has been pointed out by Wittgenstein, without the occurrence of any peculiarly relevant t-states. On the other hand, thinking does occur without the use of hands, mouth, ears, eyes, fingers in any appropriately relevant manner. Hence, what can only occur by the use of these is not the same as thinking, though it may somehow involve or influence thinking. Smart remarks in (7) that, when he thinkingly wrote the sentence, "Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself," he could "no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking." This may be true of thinkingly writing the sentence (whatever that means). But it does not follow that one cannot think that certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself without the use of language, though Smart clearly thinks that it does. Of course one cannot thinkingly write without writing. But that is nothing to the point of whether or not we can and do think with or without words. Also, the comparison to graceful walking is not apt. We do, as above shown, sometimes think without words or symbols, while no cases of grace without behavior are known. Now it is very certainly true that some processes clearly involving thinking as described above depend for their occurrence upon linguistic behavior and the sensible signs which it involves, for example, the processes of learning algebra or the history of the Basques, or learning how to counsel emotionally upset persons. But it is to be noted that these are not themselves processes of thinking, but rather are extremely complex processes involving all kinds of events and entities other than language and other than thinking--e.g., feelings, perceptions, buildings, other persons, days and nights, books, and so on. None of these processes is a process of thinking; and for that reason alone it is invalid to infer from them that thinking is linguistic behavior, or that one thinks with language. What is essential to things or events of a certain sort must be shown essential to them taken by themselves, not in combination with many other things. With reference to the involved processes in question, it might be more appropriate (though it would still be wrong) to say--as some have said in recent years--that we live in or with language. Nevertheless, it is certain that some kind of dependence relation--probably similar to feedback mechanisms--exists between linguistic processes and their sensuous signs, on the one hand, and certain sequences of t-states on the other. What, exactly, this relation <132> of dependence is continues to be veiled by, among other things, a priori assumptions about what thinking and language must be and do. One such assumption is that which holds thinking essentially to be an operation with signs or symbols, or doing something with--or in--linguistic processes or entities. The view that we (necessarily) think without language is, today, regarded as so outlandish as not to merit serious consideration. But this is not due to a lack of arguments to support it. My object here has been to focus upon certain arguments purporting to show the absurdity of thinking in language. The main points in these arguments are: Thinking does occur without any accompanying language whatsoever, and thus shows itself not to be a power or act of managing linguistic signs, once it is clear what such a sign is. Thinking, as distinct from behavioral processes involving it, can do nothing to signs or symbols, and hence can do nothing with them. NOTES See for example, Ramsey's Foundations of Mathematics, p. 138, and Kneale's remarks in Feigl and Sellars, Readings in Philosophical Analysis, p. 42. Return to text. See S. Morris Engel, "Thought and Language," Dialogue, Vol. 3, 1964, 160-170; Jerome Shaffer, "Recent Work on the Mind-Body Problem," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. II, 1965, esp. p. 83; R. Kirk, "Rationality Without Language," Mind, 1967, pp. 369-368; G. Ryle, "A Puzzling Element in the Notion of Thinking," in Studies in the Philosophy of Thought and Action, P. F. Strawson, ed., (Oxford: 1968), pp. 7-23. Interesting remarks on the issues here are also found in Bruce Aune's Knowledge, Mind and Nature, chap. VIII and H. H. Price's Thinking and Experience, Chap. X.  See also Wm. James, "Thought Before Language; A Deaf Mute's Recollections," Mind, Vol. I, 1892; and see Wittgenstein's comments on this in Philosophical Investigations, No. 342. Return to text. I use only think here, for simplicity; but think that and other structures of such intentional states (and sequences thereof) might also be mentioned. Specifically, I would also wish to hold that instances of thinking that, in the sense of inferring or puzzling something out, occur in the absence of appropriate linguistic entities or activities. Return to text.

[unspun]

But seriously folks, it is not a moral dilemma, but one of taste.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thank you for the chuckle! Hugs and *smooches*!

[cornelis]

Estella was nearly dead and yet desirable.

[unspun]

Havesham's disciple(s)

[cornelis]

are reserved for platonic lovers

[unspun]

hopefully, the Groom, though.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post, unspun!

But seriously folks, it is not a moral dilemma, but one of taste.

I imagine it is a matter of personal taste as you say, though it is good to remember this warning from Paul as we explore other philosophies:

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. - II Corintians 11:2-3

[unspun]

the simplicity that is in Christ

Fundamental relationships would be prety basic all-right, and the most fundamental, well of course, though the results are cornucopic.

But you know more than I about simplicity, complexity, and ultimate.

[cornelis]

as we explore other philosophies

It's no matter ma'am, you have exonerated yourself of that task. Nothing like basking in the sun.

[Consort]

So, you are using "relater" to say that we have a body, a soul, and an intellect? Would that be accurate?

[betty boop]

I do hope you will post the ideological differences between the orthodox and reform Christianity and the effect it has had on all of us!

Now there’s a tall order, A-G! I don’t think I can do more than perhaps indicate how very “radical” the Reformation was, and indicate some of the consequences that it had in transforming society by transforming thought and attitudes, and the course of Western history in the process. That is, I really don’t want to get into doctrinal disputes that divide the sects, such as the controversy between the doctrine of faith and good works, and the doctrine of faith by grace alone; of predestination, transubstantiation, and so forth. If it’s OK with you, I’d like to confine myself to the “social side” of the question. What I have in mind is to look at the ways in which the Reformation transformed society and history, in the run-up to the Enlightenment, which many of its key ideas enabled.

Primarily, the impulse of the Evangelicals and the so-called Puritans was emancipation from the Roman hierarchy. From there, as Jacques Barzun notes, “the steps to greater freedom followed logically.” If you can get rid of popes and bishops, then why not lords and gentry? “When every congregation was independent and elected its minister, the whole people should be politically empowered through the vote. The religious parallel was decisive: if a purer religion, close to the one depicted in the gospel, was attainable by getting rid of superiors in the church, a better social and economic life, close to the life depicted in the gospels, would follow by getting rid of social and political superiors.”

The Church of Rome, by contrast, was nothing if not hierarchical, anti-democratic, with the basis of its legitimizing authority at the very top, in the occupant of the Throne of St. Peter, acting through the princes of the Church, the cardinals, bishops, and on down the hierarchical line. At the very bottom was the “average person.” Yet the Mass was sung in a language that the “average person” didn’t understand; and owing to widespread illiteracy, the Bible was not widely read.

The Reformation changed all this. Its spirit of emancipation had the effect of fostering the spirit of democracy as a political concept, and of democratizing thought. No longer was truth perceived as the deposit of faith under the protection of a professional elite. Truth was everyman’s, susceptible to individual reason.

Emancipation from Church authority enabled the bubbling up of all kinds of what were formerly understood as “wild ideas” regarding the social sphere. For instance, the Puritans “agitated for equality of rights and conditions…the Anabaptists were [what we’d today call] communists, the Ranters were anarchists, the Diggers were collectivists, and the Fifth Monarchy men were utopians…. Still others [the Quakers] were egalitarians…. The Familists…taught that love inspired by faith sufficed to maintain society – no need of laws or ranks. This type of anarchism is perennial in the West – witness the Flower People of 1968.”

I’ve been quoting Jacques Barzun, from his magisterial From Dawn to Decadence, 2000. In speaking of the Puritans, he points out that the term does not refer primarily to “purity of morals,” which is what we tend to think it means today; but to purity of church institutions and practices. As earlier suggested, this focus on institutions and practices bled over into the secular sphere, with some remarkable historical consequences:

“The Puritans who appealed to reason in support of popular rights pointed out that human institutions were a matter of choice designed for a purpose and maintained by custom. They should be changed when the purpose was no longer served. Mere length of time – custom – is arbitrary, not in itself a reason. Consciously or not, some of the Puritans shared the scientists’ trust in experience, in results, in utility. With these tests one could condemn any part of the status quo. The great lawyer of the period, Sir Edward Coke, made it a maxim that the common law was the embodiment of reason; it followed that judges must not only give reasons for their decisions, but must use reason to iron out the kinks created by bad cases….

“Nature is the twin of reason in that both are given: man is the reasoning animal by nature, and nature is what man finds ready-made to be reasoned about. It acts apart from his will and wishes. Natural law and natural rights seem plain when one argues about fundamentals; for instance, that every human being has a right to live unmolested, that government is needed to ensure that right, and that man-made laws must serve and not defeat natural rights. If any civil law does work against a natural right, the law of nature warrants disobeying the law and even overthrowing the government.

“These reasonings are familiar to those who remember the preamble to the Declaration of Independence….”

Thus the seeds of the Enlightenment can be identified in the Puritan mind. Reason comes to the fore as the tool par excellence by which emancipated man can explore and order his world.

The contrast with Roman orthodoxy could not be more stark. In that environment, the life of the mind, the life of reason, was then pretty much confined to a professional intellectual class. Of course, that class included some of the greatest thinkers of all time – Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm to name a few. These men were alive, not only to the Holy Scriptures, but to classical philosophy as well, especially Aristotle – who was generally regarded as a “pagan” by reformed Christianity, and therefore beyond the pale of the Holy Scriptures and the community of faith. One of the ways the Puritan wished to purify the Church and its practices was to “purify” it of Greek thought.

On my view, the Reformation marks the clear divide that exists between the classical and the modern worldviews/historical periods. I note in passing, with a certain sense of irony, that the leading ideas of this great revolution in thought and attitude continue to feed the streams of secularization in our own time.

* * * * * *

I’ve got to wrap this up, A-G. But speaking of the great Scholastic Doctors of the Church, Augustine and Aquinas, I have a little bit of information I recently came across I’d like to share with you. I think you’ll find most interesting. It has to do with their interpretation of the “in the beginning…” of Genesis.

Augustine held that the “six days of creation” were not to be regarded as referring to periods of time or any notion of temporal succession. Instead, Augustine thought that “all things were produced simultaneously by God in a single instant and subsequently underwent some natural process of development.

Which to my mind conjures up the idea of the Word as “singularity,” hanging out in Planck era (so to speak), about to be exploded into the “speech” of the Big Bang….

Stephen Bell writes (in Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 2003): “In commenting on this issue, St. Thomas said that the idea of successive creation was ‘more common, and seems superficially to be more in accord with the letter [of Scripture],’ but that St. Augustine’s idea of simultaneous creation was ‘more conformed to reason,’ and therefore had his (St. Thomas’) preference.”

For those readers who still entertain the notion of religion as a bunch of superstitious mumbo-jumbo utterly opposed to reason or to the life of the mind, Bell – professor of physics, University of Delaware – has this to say:

“This statement of St. Thomas perfectly illustrates another important point, which is that the church has always sought to give empirical reason its due. Never (even…in the Galileo case) has the church insisted upon interpretations of the Bible that conflicted with what could be demonstrated from reason and experience. In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas cites the teaching of Augustine on the principles which should be observed in interpreting scripture: ‘Augustine teaches that two points should be kept in mind when resolving such questions. First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Second, when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare insist that it is still the definitive sense of the text.’”

On this point, here’s St. Augustine:

“Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycle of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn… If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren,… to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture,… although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Faith and reason -- Augustine and Thomas are their great embodiments.

[Sloth]

Total BS.

First, consider a reason for rejecting the view that we always think in language. It consists in the fact that thinking often occurs without the production, manipulation, or perception of sense-perceptible signs, without which there is no use of language. Such occurrences often provoke offers of 'A penny for your thoughts.'

Foolishness. Necessarily, in order to provoke such a solicitation, there must have been some stimulus -- a pause in conversation, staring into space, etc. -- something clearly sense-perceptible. However, that is beside the point as I will demonstrate shortly.

It is always false to say that language is present or in use where no signs are present or in use. And, whatever else a sign may be, it is something which is apprehendable via its sensible qualities. That is, it is something which can be either seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled.

Simply false. Words (i.e., language) can be thought without sense-perceptible consequences.

If, as in (3), "thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs," then when there are no signs--and when, consequently, the means by which we produce, manipulate, or perceive signs are not functioning--we do have a difficulty. In fact, a difficulty so severe that it amounts to a proof that thinking is not essentially the activity of operating with signs, and that often we think entirely without language. One cannot operate with signs where there are no signs. [and a bunch more BS snipped] But talking and writing to oneself require the production and perception of sensuous signs just as much as talking and writing to another.

Again, simply false.

[more BS] ...But imaging a word is not using a word, any more than imaging a horse is using a horse. Moreover, imaging a word, phrase, or sentence is not producing or perceiving a word, phrase, or sentence any more than imaging a horse is producing or perceiving--or otherwise 'having'--a horse.

Here is where the author tries to use his convenient redefinition of "use" and "language" to dismiss the obvious falsehood of his premise. Obviously a person "imaging linguistic entities" -- i.e., thinking with words -- IS using language. It is a false claim that to use language one must produce or perceive it in some externally tangible way. When I compose my thoughts in my head, I am calling up words from my memory and arranging them to match my feelings or meanings, which lack expression, and solidity if you will, without language.

It is absurd to suppose that one can do x with y without in some way bringing about a change in the condition, state, relations, or properties of y. It is this and only this that I put by saying that it is absurd to suppose that one can do something with y while doing nothing to y.

I can tell the time of day with the sun, but in doing so I do not change the state of the sun.

For evidence that one cannot think much without language, look at children who have grown in the wild since perhaps their toddler years, without human influence. There have been some of these Tarzan-like cases in real life, but unlike Tarzan, the children do not exhibit mature thought processes on being taught to communicate. Presumably, if higher thought processes were occurring in the absence of language, then these people could describe such thought after the fact, when they learned language. Instead, they are mentally retarded, arguably from lack of linguistic stimuli. If they could describe pre-linguistic thoughts, I doubt they'd be much more complex than general feelings of hunger, fatigue, anger, jealousy, etc. -- the same sort of "thinking" exhibited by your dog

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I don't presume to have better knowledge than you, unspun - only a different perspective.

From the playground analogy of the previous thread, your domain is considerably more demanding and full of relationships - thus, your needs are different. It doesn't take much for those of us who say "up, Papaw, pweese."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Indeed, I have exonerated myself of the task - much like Mary did:

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. - Luke 10:38-42

[unspun]

Thanks

Hugs... kisses...

...run along and play in FR now, I'll be right there playing with you.

[js1138]

I note in passing, with a certain sense of irony, that the leading ideas of this great revolution in thought and attitude continue to feed the streams of secularization in our own time.

Good call. Everyone now interprets the Bible in his or her own way. This has negative consequenses, but I would not personally want to trade freedom of conscience for certainty enforced at the point of a sword.

[tpaine]

The great lawyer of the [Puritan] period, Sir Edward Coke, made it a maxim that the common law was the embodiment of reason;
-- it followed that judges must not only give reasons for their decisions, but must use reason to iron out the kinks created by bad cases….


"Nature is the twin of reason in that both are given: man is the reasoning animal by nature, and nature is what man finds ready-made to be reasoned about. It acts apart from his will and wishes. Natural law and natural rights seem plain when one argues about fundamentals; for instance, that every human being has a right to live unmolested, that government is needed to ensure that right, and that man-made laws must serve and not defeat natural rights. If any civil law does work against a natural right, the law of nature warrants disobeying the law and even overthrowing the government."

"These reasonings are familiar to those who remember the preamble to the Declaration of Independence…."

_____________________________________

Great quotes Betty, thanks.. To bad that many here at FR cannot understand their ramifications, when it comes to todays constitutional realities.

[Alamo-Girl]

Oh wow! That is wonderful. Definitely a bookmarker. Thank you so very much!!!

The scope is just what I intended. The specific doctrine was not the issue.

You have laid out the roadmap of history which shows not only the clear roots of Democracy in Christianity but also clarifies why it was so important to Marx to have a scientific basis (Darwin) to justify his philosophy!

And the last section is powerful, too! Oh, I could spend hours on that alone (and probably will.)

Thank you so very much! Hugs!!!

[unspun]

Faith and reason

Thank you, I'll look forward to being more edified to read this. And you'll forgive me for being like A-G by saying I prefer "revelation" and "wisdom" even more, as the Scriptures say, words having a better relation of (and under/with) their source, eh? (Revelation provides for and embraces faith and wisdom provides for and embraces reason.)

Ephesians 1
¹⁷I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit^[1] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

Footnotes

1. 1:17 Or a spirit

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent post and choice of Scripture, unspun! I agree with you! Hugs!