Originally posted by wombing
pretty self-explanatory topic methinks.
*philosophy is the excercising of our rational intellect by means of *verbo-intellectual thought. yet language is so limiting, subjective, and IMO flawed.
*i am coming to the point where words just don't cut it. it seems impossible for an objective philosophy to be contained or inherent within words (in the capacity of well-defined vessels of conceptual thought).
* "definition" is "a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol"
*it seems defintion is the aspect of language which nullifies any possibility for objectivity. every word is related to every other word. every concept is related to every other concept.
*different words can have a shared synonym and yet not be synonyms themselves. ultimately the relating aspect of language is unsatisfactory, and suitable for poetry, but not philosophy.
*"i think, therefore i am" * *
*is this famous philosophical maxim conveying anything? would it be equally as true to say "i am, therefore i think"?
*if not, where is the extraneous factor which descartes left out? if thought and being are not absolutely and completely interchangeable, how do they differ?
*
*i think this conveys my general drift. *
*any thoughts, especially from those who may have investigated the interrelation of linguisics and philosophy more in depth? anyone have a handle on chomsky's recent contributions to the field of linguistics? or heideger (sp), who i believe also incorporated language into his philosophy?
I knew you thought like me, Wombing It's just too weird. I've had all the thoughts you just presented here over the past few weeks, been discussing them with my friends. I took a test where I was asked to define some words without preparing beforehand. Even though I knew the words well I had a hard time defining them. After thinking about it I decided it was wrong to limit the existence of a word to a combination of equally ambiguous words. It's why I hated dictionaries as a child. If every word represents a string of different words, then which are the original words? Definitions just run you in logical circles without giving you a true meaning. Dictionary writers are equivocaters and bastards, I decided.
the people we call geniuses are those that excel at expression with one or many languages. Music, math, speech, writing, etc + etc. I think that we all have a potential for higher thinking, the problem is we have to filter our pure feelings into words and sentences to be understood. Language is a translation of thought, and so one's philosophy is limited not only by his own power but also the power of his language to represent him. I think that the future of mankind's development is tied to the evolution of language. I hate to use stereotypes but it's evident that asians are better at math. The Japanese far surpass the US in technology. I have japanese videos of robot battles as proof. Well, what makes them so smart? genetics? that's not an acceptable belief in today's world. No, I think it's because asian languages are some of the most complex and difficult on earth. Regardless of race or creed, one thing most exceptionally intelligent people have is facility of expression. If a culture teaches its young a better language from birth, it will be more articulate and therefore smarter.
I make this claim because I believe that empathy outweighs intelligence.. one who can add his mind to another's is better off than a genius who can't stand working with others. You know, two heads are better than one, and so the best heads are those that fit nicely with other heads, not necessarily the most powerful ones.
|
|
Bookmarks