I think there are many, many interesting discussion to be had in this field. But rather than list everything at once and have a bunch of disjointed conversations, I thought we could just exhaust one topic at a time. Of course, if this isn't interesting to anyone, then this thread will die a quiet and probably extremely painful death. And so will you if you don't respond with some coherent
So, first up for discussion: Is language required for thought?
Now, let's make sure what we're talking about here. I'm talking about ratiocination - the ability we, as humans, have to reason through certain steps. Even children, if told that if they do their homework then they can watch TV, understand the implications of doing and not doing their homework. So this does not include whatever kind of "thought" animals have (we can discuss this later), but only the reasoning ability we have. ** I realize certain animals may display behavior that is indicative of ratiocinative thought, but if we try to lump these examples in, things are going to get very very muddled **
Often, when I'm thinking about something, especially something complex, I have an inner monologue that's almost like me talking to myself. Hell, sometimes I do talk out loud to myself when in a problem-solving crunch. But is this inner monologue required for thought? I'm thinking right now of this deaf guy I saw. He's never been able to hear - he can't read lips and he doesn't know how to form words. So you have to communicate with this guy by writing. I saw him a few weeks ago actually signing (not singing) to himself, and I wondered if this functioned as his internal monologue.
So, I'll leave it here for discussion. And if anyone knows someone who has never been able to speak, ask them if they have this internal monologue and what it's like. I can't ask the deaf guy I know because I don't really know him that well. But this should be a question we can actually answer.
I would assume that his internal monologe would be himself signing or maybe some sort of make shift language devised by himself, this is just a theory i wouldnt really know i dont know any deaf people.
So, I just texted a girl I dated a couple of years back that is deaf. She wrote back that she used to only think in sign language. Now, she says that because of the influx of technology, she thinks in a hybrid of sign and "voice."
This prompts me to ask, do blind people dream of images? Or is it just sound and maybe smells?
This prompts me to ask, do blind people dream of images? Or is it just sound and maybe smells?
Maybe we should ask, how did Helen Keller think?
But hey, please define "thought"? Does the longing of freedom a thought or an instinct? It is mentioned in 1984, where the antagonists thought they can avoid the people from thinking about freedom by deleting the word "freedom" from the language.
We don't need words to think about some particular things (e.g. a smell or taste is rather hard to describe with words, thus a person is more likely to recognize it -ceteris paribus- using one of these senses than when somebody describes it using words). Some things are easier thinking about without the use of words, therefore the strong version of the linguistic relativity principle -that language is necessary for conscious thought- is not totally correct.
Something else, it's quite interesting that we seem to think the language we speak.
If the blind person has ever had sight for a length of time (maybe they lost it at a young age) then apparently they do dream with images and colours. If not, then they just dream with voices.
I think in images a lot. Usually I see sentences or just words pass briefly for my "inner eye" too, and/or some semblance of a voice humming along with the syllables.
But when I'm not taking part in a discussion (with myself or others) I think more in images.
Whether language is required for thought probably depends on how you define language. In a loose definition, it probably is required for complex lines of thoughts, especially abstract ones that are less related to things you can sense directly. In a simple line of "X will lead to Y if Z" related to real things, no, I don't think a semblance of words is necessary.
I would think that thoughts can stem from any form of interaction with the world, whether it is phonetic, visual, or from any other of the senses. Thus a blind person would think in sounds, and a deaf person would think in images (I assume a mute thinks in a combination of all three).
This means that animals do think, based on their interactions with the outside world. Animals hear a loud noise and flee (or go towards it, in some cases), so thought has happened.
The question I'm pondering is what constitutes a language? Does a dog wagging their tail in pleasure signify language? It is, after all, a form of communication...
As someone who is trilingual this is a very interesting topic. I think for the most basic things, humans probably are hard wired to be able to think about them without any language skills.
However i think a key distinction hsould be made between higher and lower thought processes. Eg, i feel hungry, therefore ill try and find some food is something id class with a lower process. However to get to the root of complex ideas and emotions language is a necessity.
Where my languages come in is with regard to the latter. To use an example, in greek there are four words, all used to describe different kinds of love, ie, friendship, sexual, an extreme form of liking something (i love my new trainers), affection within a family situation. Now this, among other linguistic eccentricities of the english language (a very imprecise one i must say) made my first few months of primary school difficult to communicate what i was saying, and found it hard to understand what others were saying in certain situations. But i digress, the point im trying to make is, the english for love is very simple and can apply in almost any context meaning certain doors remain closed to english speakers when trying to say what they mea with absolute clarity.
Nigerian though, my second language is definitely a better example. The prime example i can think of is that there is no word for 'try'. In nigeria, you do or you do not. You do not try. At school always being told to 'try your best' was a very alien concept to me, from a cultural point of view due to my father, but also because of the language barrier. Basically what im trying to say is that your inner monologue is heavily affected by language, and thereby in order to properly understand every single idea and possible thought, you would need to understand every language.
I don't think that language is required for thought at all. Language is a tool to convey thoughts, which leads me to the assumption that thought must predate language in order for there to have been a need for a means of communication. However I find that we rely so much on language to convey our thoughts that it becomes the default thought process in the manner that you put forth in the OP.
