sure, makes sense to me

>Language is the basis of more elaborate thought.

Above a certain threshold, language defines what type of thought is available. See Tlön.

I think so as well.

But there are different theories regarding language and the emergence of thought (vice versa)

aristotle aristotle was a bugger for the bottle

the dog is barking loudly
the loud barking thing is a dog


two different sentences yet they give the same meaning
if language was the only basis of thought then these two distinct sentences would have give two different meanings, therefore, there is some different "mind stuff" that represents language in our brain

>>465416
what a screwed up rhyme

>>465419

Those two sentences are in the same language, and by construction mean the same thing. Your argument is tautological.

>>465419

two things can be equivalent without being the same, your example is not sufficient.

Just curious, not trolling...
Can't you think visually though? So is that saying that language was developped for the sole purpose of further communication..?

>>465430
what about concepts with no direct visual representation
(courage, temperature, epic lulz)

>>465430

Not only that, but imagining visual images doesn't describe or understand the image. You still comprehend what it is and what it does by the language you learned.

It depends on how you define thought, but that requires language to define.

>this thread.

I'd say language is the basis of complex thought since that usually comes from sharing concepts through communication

No one human mind created our collective knowledge

Would you call body language an actual language?

i read books on this subject and the fact i that there is no definitive answer yet. Humans are biologically primed to learn language (especially that of their parents) but that doesn't explain the fact that animals (and plants) without language have consciousness and can be said to "think"

if you're interested read: the language instinct, the stuff of thought, consciousness explained

The smartest dog in the world still doesnt think with words.

>>465459

But the theory doesn't have to mean that thought occurs because of language, just the the knowledge of a language causes a creature's thoughts to be organized and limited by that language.

>>465400
you can have thought without language. A baby thinks, but it has not yet learned a language

>>465498
But a baby may not yet speak a language, but it understands.

the ability to distinguish things is the basis of thought. language is a natural consequence of this ability; we name things because we wish to distinguish them from each other (and from ourselves).

>>465498
Actually, the language a baby hears in utero has been shown to have a significant effect on the sounds it makes.

>>465400
mmm... but you don't need a language to think...

You only need language to transmit your thoughts

>>465562
This is technically more correct.

>>465551

but it knows no words - and yet its brain still thinks

>>465562
but some thoughts are only possible with language as a base.

>Language is the basis of thought

if language is the basis of thought, then the logical thing to assume is that language is prior to thought.

But there can be no language without thinking! So, thought comes first, language second.

ITT: 4channers discover the miraculous complexity of the human mind

>>465572
I would argue that a baby doesn't, in fact, actually think. It emotes, it feels, and it exists in pretty much pure id. It has not yet developed ego or superego, as it has no conception of cause and effect, or duration.

With that in mind, true thinking doesn't happen until you are able to formulate thoughts with abstract concepts, and those don't exist without pinning labels to them - i.e. "words."

>>465576
their relation is dialectic.
there is no primate here.
At least I have not heard a totally convincing arguement from either side.

the 'basis' there should be carefully interpreted. it's not meant as a causal basis. thought is however only thinkable within language.

>>465579

So what about animals? They exist without language, but they are capable of some rudimentary thought, and certainly capable of understanding cause, effect, and duration.

>>465576
Language is mose important tahn thought.

And I call "laguage" to everything, not only words.


This pic is a thought expressed in a language.

>>465588
I think most linguists and biologists would disagree with your assessment that animals in general "think." Animals have similar functions of id, ego, and superego, in that some have developed the ability to manipulate other animals to do their bidding (i.e. look at the domestic cat...).

With the exception of some primates, who are our closest relatives, animals can't generally produce language.

>>465580
>their relation is dialectic.
or, at least, it is a false dichotomy

i don't know much about his stuff, but the guy who is most famous for this "no thought without language" position is davidson. he would say that because animals have no language, they cannot think even if they show behavior etc that suggest intelligence.

words are nothing but descriptions of thoughts not the thoughts themselves. so thought is the basis for language not the other way around.

there are tons of feelings we simply write off as abstract without trying to come up with a proper names because the necessity isn't there.

>because animals have no language, they cannot think even if they show behavior etc that suggest intelligence.

so what's going on inside their heads then? Magic?

>>465400
Thought is the basis of language!

>>465592

you think most biologists would disagree with the proposition that animals think? how much biology have you studied?

african gray parrots
dolphins
sea lions
primates

i think YOU will find that there is not that much that seperates us from animals other than a matter of complexity.

>>465612
But if your language were to be dimished and the words completely obliterated, would you still be able to think as elaborately?

>>465615
language develops BECAUSE thoughts get more detailed and need expressing. not the other way around.

When Irene Pepperberg, a professor at the University of Arizona, says goodnight, she typically hears the reply "Bye. I'm gonna go eat dinner. I'll see you tomorrow." Though the response itself is not unusual, the source is, for it comes from Alex, a gray parrot, Pepperberg's main research subject for the past 22 years. That parrots can talk is well known; what Pepperberg set out to study was their cognitive abilities. By teaching the bird the meaning--not just the sound--of words in order to communicate, she hoped to discover how his brain worked. She exhaustively details her fascinating results in The Alex Studies.

Pepperberg bought Alex--a parrot of average intelligence and without lofty pedigree or training--from a pet store when he was 1. Since working with Pepperberg, he has developed a 100-word vocabulary and can identify 50 different objects, recognizing quantities up to six, distinguishing seven colors and five shapes, and understanding the difference between big and small, same and different, over and under. He can tell you, for instance, that corn is yellow even if there is no corn in view, as well as correctly select the square object among various shapes and identify it verbally. What this all means, stresses Pepperberg, is that Alex is not merely parroting but actually thinking; he bases answers on reason rather than instinct or mimicry.

THERE IS NO FREE WILL

WE ARE REPLICATION MACHINES USED BY GENES TO PROPAGATE THEMSELVES

CONSCIOUSNESS IS ONLY ONE OF THE METHODS BY WHICH THEY ACCOMPLISH THIS

THE WORLD WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF WE WERE ALL BACTERIA MADE ONLY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MULTIPLYING

>>465623
So thought it the basis of language.

>>465631
>>465613
I'm aware of these examples, but I would like you to consider the relative scarcity of this compared to the massive number of various species that we're aware of on Earth.

The African Grey Parrot did not develop the ability to talk by itself; it observed and learned communication skills from humans. Primates, on the other hand, have already developed means of communicating rational thought without a significant amount of human interaction.

>>465636
the world would be better? erm, I think your conscioussness got the better of you

>>465644
exactly.

earlier post of mine:
>>465602

>>465615
language would never diminish unless thought diminished first.

>>465648

just because the african gray parrot didn't generate a complex language system on its own does not mean that animals don't think, which is what you were trying to say before. it just means that such a system was not advantageous for their survival. why would it be?

in fact, the fact that parrots can be trained to express themselves through human language is quantifiable proof that they ARE capable of "thought", and so highly indicative of the fact that many animals which lack the physical means to communicate verbally can, however, think.

>>465668
Language diminished unwillingly, though.

>>465679
By government, for example.

>>465690
lol...
oh u

>>465690

>>465400
It's the expression of thought

OP is right, people who are not exposed to language at an early age are all mentally retarded - granted this is a rare occurrence but it has happened (sick fucks locking up daughters in closets and never saying anything to them etc.) and they're all fucked in the head.

We can think without language but without language we have no way to organize our thoughts coherently, ergo we're basically retarded.

SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION AWWWW SHIT

I would say it's the other way around, OP.

>>465815
Please continue... :D

>>465804
maybe its less the fact that they werent exposed to language but that they were locked up somewhere that made them retarded.

>>465836

that doesn't mean language is the basis of thought. without a rigid linguistic framework in which to consider complex thoughts, you'll most likely end up making your own symbolic system which will have no translation into any human language.

such a person isn't retarded; it's just that they have a handicap to express themselves because they don't have the benefits that we've been handed by being exposed to language at an early age.

language is the manifestation of thought.

>>465836

Not all of them were locked up or abused though.

Feral children etc.

Then again feral children had traumatic lives as well.

But AFAIK psychological trauma has never been known to cause mental retardation.

>>465878
way to not get how and what I was referring to

>>465878

But they're retarded.

Not retarded in the sense that they can't relate to people and can't speak. Retarded in the sense of "durrr smearing shit on walls". Like retard-style retarded.

Language is a notational tool for thought.

>>465436

You can pick things that represent these concepts. Cultural influence is irrelevant. So using your examples I when I hear courage I think of Link from The Legend of Zelda, when I think temperature red is hot and blue is cold, and when I think of epic lulz I think the 4chan homepage.

Most people think in a combination of language (spoken and written) and visuals.

Language is the basis of collective thought since language is the only way to communicate ideas effectively.

>>465941
that's fucking retarded because you needed another concept (link, red, blue, 4chan) to represent those words whereas when you say dog you think of only the dog -your version of it of course- but you didn't need other ideas to represent it

it's not only language, it's not only pictures, it's not only the combination of language and pictures. there's higher mental represenations going on

It depends upon what your defention of "IS" is. IT could be the other way around. What are your thoughts /lit/ This is coming from a person with an A in Philosophy!

>>465894

i get it, but what i'm saying is that's no surprise. studies have also shown that it's much harder for adults to learn language than children, and it's much easier for someone who learns a second language to learn a third. if you live your childhood in a box you have no ability to access any language, and by the time you get out, your brain has already hardened itself into whatever mode of operation was advantageous to you inside the box (probably smearing shit on the walls).

language is a construct that gets handed to us by society that gives us a huge advantage in terms of our capability for thought. that doesn't mean that language is the precursor to thought.

there is absolutely no difference between your definition of 'retarded' and having a functionally impaired brain. haven't you ever been drunk? fuck, get me drunk enough and i'll smear some shit on walls too.

>>466002

You're fucking retarded if you actually think people don't automatically create mental relationships between ideas, people, places, and things. They don't even have to be directly related in the real world.

Ever forget someone's name and then remember it later because you saw something you associated with that person? That happens to everybody and for almost everything. It's our mind's most efficient way of recalling lost information.

Language is only a structure for thought, not the basis.

no

whorf-shapir hypothesis is unproven. Words have generally been created to express, not vice-versa