I'm sorry, but in this one observation, Orwell was flat-out mistaken. I've learned there are many sorts of thinkers, including those who use no sort of language to think. I am one of those. Over time I've adopted language and writing, but it has absolutely not affected my ability to think and reason, in fact, it sometimes makes reasoning more difficult. It also slows me down. Disagree if you wish, but I was flabbergasted at twenty to learn there are people who think almost entirely using language. Without it, they would seem to be idiots, so of course, they invent language.
I don't disagree at all. Indeed, language is a cultural convention that must adapt to the "average." Ways of thinking are not "absolute." My husband, for example, has what is called "tree-like" thinking: for a "linear" mind like mine, this requires a huge effort of adaptation! That said, once again, for the average person, we are witnessing a glaring impoverishment of language and thought, deliberately implemented to stifle the spirit of analysis.
Albert Camus said: "To misname things is to contribute to the unhappiness of the world."
I think you miss my meaning. I mean to say, for many of us, language is totally unnecessary for rational thought. Impoverishment, intentional? I don't see it.
Sharing thoughts vs. independent reasoning. I’ll go along with sharing thoughts, but I can reason just fine with no words involved.
My friend Steve had the finest and fullest vocabulary of anyone I’d ever met. However he used words in the formulation of every single thought, or so he claimed. I happen to be different.
I believe people who are backward verbally simply lack the intelligence to absorb language. That is why I said it was self-inflicted.
Reasoning is something that is learned, not innate. And you cannot develop a complete thought if you do not have access to the concepts they reflect. Consequently, if you are deprived of words—of language—or worse, if the culture in which you are immersed distorts the meaning of words, most people find themselves in a mental fog imposed on them.
It looks like others agree with you, but consider, did pre-language humans have no ability to reason? If a deer sees it's fellow hit by a car, might it not reason that it may be better to stay off the road? It seems to me your argument has merit but is anything but absolute.
I had this similar argument with a gentleman who insisted that no artificial intelligence will ever think because it has no fellows. One needs a like-minded fellow to think.
Briiliant point ! Proof that words describe different ways peoples or groups ”see” the world. I think it’s Roman Jakobson who studied how different groups of languages (indo-european, japanese, ...) also ”structure” different cognitive abilities, e.g. more ”gifted” for maths, engineering, ...
I'm sorry, but in this one observation, Orwell was flat-out mistaken. I've learned there are many sorts of thinkers, including those who use no sort of language to think. I am one of those. Over time I've adopted language and writing, but it has absolutely not affected my ability to think and reason, in fact, it sometimes makes reasoning more difficult. It also slows me down. Disagree if you wish, but I was flabbergasted at twenty to learn there are people who think almost entirely using language. Without it, they would seem to be idiots, so of course, they invent language.
I don't disagree at all. Indeed, language is a cultural convention that must adapt to the "average." Ways of thinking are not "absolute." My husband, for example, has what is called "tree-like" thinking: for a "linear" mind like mine, this requires a huge effort of adaptation! That said, once again, for the average person, we are witnessing a glaring impoverishment of language and thought, deliberately implemented to stifle the spirit of analysis.
Albert Camus said: "To misname things is to contribute to the unhappiness of the world."
I think you miss my meaning. I mean to say, for many of us, language is totally unnecessary for rational thought. Impoverishment, intentional? I don't see it.
Well, I notice you can read and write, and I suppose you can speak too... With what else than words can we elaborate, formulate and share thoughts ?
Sharing thoughts vs. independent reasoning. I’ll go along with sharing thoughts, but I can reason just fine with no words involved.
My friend Steve had the finest and fullest vocabulary of anyone I’d ever met. However he used words in the formulation of every single thought, or so he claimed. I happen to be different.
I believe people who are backward verbally simply lack the intelligence to absorb language. That is why I said it was self-inflicted.
The impoverished, in most cases it is self-inflicted.
Reasoning is something that is learned, not innate. And you cannot develop a complete thought if you do not have access to the concepts they reflect. Consequently, if you are deprived of words—of language—or worse, if the culture in which you are immersed distorts the meaning of words, most people find themselves in a mental fog imposed on them.
It looks like others agree with you, but consider, did pre-language humans have no ability to reason? If a deer sees it's fellow hit by a car, might it not reason that it may be better to stay off the road? It seems to me your argument has merit but is anything but absolute.
I had this similar argument with a gentleman who insisted that no artificial intelligence will ever think because it has no fellows. One needs a like-minded fellow to think.
Sorry, I don't buy his reasoning, or yours.
Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Blessed are the polyglotts ...
Entire NEW worlds and horizons are accessible to them.
Le pont (m), die Bruecke (f) as a simple example ...
Briiliant point ! Proof that words describe different ways peoples or groups ”see” the world. I think it’s Roman Jakobson who studied how different groups of languages (indo-european, japanese, ...) also ”structure” different cognitive abilities, e.g. more ”gifted” for maths, engineering, ...