Thread: Do any of you think language fails at conveying abstract ideas?

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

I can't believe how unbelievably ignorant your statement is.... it boggles the mind.

Your example was ridiculous.

Music, the most abstract art, can never be accurately conveyed or experienced with words.

Agree with both above. Many experiences just can't be adequately conveyed using words. And music? Forget it.

Originally Posted by juroara

Your example was ridiculous.

Music, the most abstract art, can never be accurately conveyed or experienced with words.

How was my example rediculous? Just as humans are responsible for the problems that you assosciate to language, humans are responsible for killing people with guns. It isn't the language's fault.

And what do you mean about music? Music can be described in words. Any experience, with good enough diction and vocabulary, can be described.

The point I'm trying to get across is that your post was dumb. Saying that language fails because HUMANS fight over them is dumb. Like I said before... it's like blaming guns for killing people. Unless there's a man behind the gun that gun won't kill anyone.

I don't want to get into a big discussion with you, 'cause we'll be misunderstanding each other and it'll turn into a Sh*tstorm.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

The point I'm trying to get across is that your post was dumb. Saying that language fails because HUMANS fight over them is dumb.

I never said language fails because humans fight over them. I said language fails at conveying abstract ideas. Humans, forgetting that language does not hold an absolute meaning, start to argue over the usage and definition of words

yes language fails!

Look at how many people debate here over the definition of a word, attacking each other for the words they have chosen to use, rather than transcending the word and seeing the meaning behind it that is wordless

That sounds to me like you're blaming language for things PEOPLE do. Even in your post you say "look at how many people debate"... so you kinda contradict yourself there.

I said language fails at conveying abstract ideas.

No you didn't. But since you're saying it now, can you please elaborate? Because I know that language, in the hands (or mouth) of a person with exceptional, even decent, linguistic skills can explain abstract ideas. Simply the fact that we know abstract ideas, shows that we can express them through language.

Mindwanderer and Juroara are demonstrating the point.
In order for an idea to be communicated both parties have to be able to understand the meaning prior to communication. Like if I say that I saw a green jacket I liked and my friend says "what's green?". He needs to already know what green is. So I say grass is green and he says, "Oh, OK". Trying to communicate abstract ideas is hard because not everyone has the same abstract ideas. If they did it would be easy and there would be words for it.
But on the other hand, language has given us the ability to think in abstract ideas in the first place. If it wasn't for language to give form to our thoughts, we couldn't have philosophy, science, religion, psychology, etc. As language evolves so does our consciousness, and visa versa. It is evolution.
And different languages affect people in different ways.
When the Chinese invaded Tibet they had to have a special committee to try to tackle the language barrier. Because the Tibetans, although they had no word for airplane or tree have hundreds of thousands of words for subtle states of consciousness.
Language is a creation of the human mind, and as such, of course there will always be limits to it. Always!!! And even if there wasn't, there would be limits of the ability of people to understand. It isn't language's fault that you can't understand Einstein or Stephen Hawkins.
Communication itself has limits. In communication there are at least two people trying to communicate. The only way for total understanding is to bridge the gap between the two. Kind of like telepathy, or really good sex with someone you are really into and the feeling is mutual. When the two become one, there is total understanding, and there is communion, not just communication. Communication is between two heads. Communion is between two hearts.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Mindwanderer and Juroara are demonstrating the point.

Lol. I'm not ignorant to this!

Mindwanderer, the words I choose to convey my message FAILED to convey to message to you. You just experienced what I was trying to get at with my limiting words.

Originally Posted by juroara

Lol. I'm not ignorant to this!

Mindwanderer, the words I choose to convey my message FAILED to convey to message to you. You just experienced what I was trying to get at with my limiting words.

Come again? That doesn't make sense! Mqaybe Mindwanderer wiil understand!

But really look at the word understand, everyone.
It means to stand under. You have to be humble to understand someone. You can't think that you are better than someone or you are right and they are wrong. You need to stand under them.

If you read my post on the first page you'll see I said the exact same thing. LANGUAGE isn't the problem... we are... humans are. But juroara said language fails, when it clearly doesn't. If anything this whole thread is pretty silly, considering it's asking if language fails at conveying abstract ideas. Well, language is the ONLY way to convey anything... even abstract ideas.

My whole argument was that language does not fail at conveying abstract ideas, but that people either lack in expression or comprehension.

If either of you read either of my posts you'd see me say this repeatedly, and rather clearly.

Not at all. Maybe your own diction, or a limitied vocabulary could be a problem... but not language.

But the simple fact is, that's a fault of the person... not the language. Persuasion lies in the mind, not the language.

The ability to explain abstract ideas rests solely in the being... not the language. Regardless of how simple or complex the language.

You also have to consider the person trying to receive the abstract idea. Perhaps they're a more visual person, or they learn easier with examples, metaphors etc. Some people simply don't have the capacity to comprehend some abstract ideas.

Assuming the person A has ability to speak, and person B has ability to hear AND understand... then language will get any idea across... it's incredibly versatile.

Like I said, the only restricting factor is the ability to use the language properly and well. As you know, one person can hear something and understand it, while another can not... and the simple solution is to change up the wording and try again.

See a trend? Six times I clearly state this...

Dannon Oneironaut, it appears the limiting factor in this conveyance of abstract ideas lies solely in your ability to read posts.

You just said what I've been saying this whole time...

*draws pictures in the sand until someone understands him*

btw

No you didn't. But since you're saying it now

It was in the context. The title of this thread is a question. And the question is, Do any of you think language fails at conveying abstract ideas! And my first response was that I agree to this statement.

But I don't see the point in arguing any further as to whether or not it does. As a visual artist, I come across the limitation of human language all the time. Which is why I express in paint.

Fair enough, but I'd also like to say that even the most complex painting can be described fully in words... not to say the experience is the same... but I still KNOW from my extensive involvement in psychology as well as my love of philosophy that the human language knows no bounds. If it isn't too abstract to understand it isn't too abstract for language.

In fact, I have a thread open in extended discussion called the glass bead game that will blow your mind if you think that language can't convey abstract ideas.

Btw, how else would you describe an abstract idea? A painting sure wouldn't do it... if anything paintings are more subjective than language... more people piss and whine over art than words.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

If you read my post on the first page you'll see I said the exact same thing. LANGUAGE isn't the problem... we are... humans are. But juroara said language fails, when it clearly doesn't. If anything this whole thread is pretty silly, considering it's asking if language fails at conveying abstract ideas. Well, language is the ONLY way to convey anything... even abstract ideas.

My whole argument was that language does not fail at conveying abstract ideas, but that people either lack in expression or comprehension.

If either of you read either of my posts you'd see me say this repeatedly, and rather clearly.


See a trend? Six times I clearly state this...

Dannon Oneironaut, it appears the limiting factor in this conveyance of abstract ideas lies solely in your ability to read posts.

You just said what I've been saying this whole time...

Why do you think I am against you? Why not see me as arguing for your point, then? Why not see me as backing you up? Why do you think I'm disagreeing with you? Or are you disagreeing with me? Is it you who are misunderstanding me? Do you think I am being confrontational to you? I never said that you were wrong. OK, I'll give you the credit, you said it first, you are right.

But we cannot separate language from the people who think it and speak it. It goes hand in hand. Language is an extension of our mind. So if we are lacking in intelligence of expression or understanding that comes through in language. Even this interaction proves the point. And it is our language that either supports or doesn't support abstract ideas to be formulated. So if you had a language of only fifty words, it would be your language's fault if you could think more abstractly than the language.

BTW, English is the fastest growing language of all time right now. It has the most words of any language ever and it is growing every day. I read somewhere that it has doubled the amount of words in the past century, or something close to that.

When enough people can formulate an unlimited thought then maybe we can communicate it to others who have also had an unlimited thought. But thoughts are limited. There can be no such thing as an unlimited thought or concept, no matter how abstract. And when you compare anything finite against infinity it becomes zero.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

Especially those in philosophy?

Sometimes when I drift off in thought it becomes hard for me to put certain ideas in words, and it's even more difficult to remember exactly I was thinking. It seems at times the process is more in ideas/feelings than anything else.

Is there a flaw in language? Are there words for higher ideas that we lack simply because we never think in that way? From my experiences I believe it to be so.

Do you believe language places a limiter on society's growth? Are we confined/conditioned to behave, to think in certain ways? And what are these higher ideas, these words that we lack?

I haven't had the to read the whole thread, yet, but I will comment on this before jumping into the fray so to speak.

In brief, I agree with this premise the OP has put forth.

This problem arises where I think in concepts rather than words, then I try to translate the concept into something that can be expressed verbally. As wonderful and extensive as the English language is. Even though it has so many difference nuances and connotations to one word, I find it difficult to find the right word, sentence, or expression for those times when I think in concepts as opposed to words. Probably because words themselves are limited as a medium, while concepts can convey feelings,images, and ideas all in one. In other words, several mediums all jam packed into one.

It is like having an essay in your head condensed into something that can be experienced in a single moment.

I think language for the most part, is the best method of communicating (other than body language) with other people.

What we have here is something marvelous, yet still limited. However, there is no getting away around this. Language is the best we have. I think in a certain sense, language trumps thinking in concepts in the sense that when you think your thoughts out they are ordered and synchronized in some sort of way.

For example, chronologically, cause and effect,narrative all that. Thinking in ideas and concepts does not provide the same structure and order that language does.

You see, words are symbols for ideas. And we confuse the symbols for what they symbolize. And in order for true communication, the symbols have to match perfectly. Which is impossible because two people have their own unique points of view. Of course, most symbols are consistent enough to get by. For example, when I say the word pencil, we can communicate effectively enough because pencils are pretty much the same everywhere and everyones' idea of a pencil is consistent enough to match up so there is little room for misunderstandings. It is abstract ideas and concepts that get trickier, like the words happiness and love. But still, most everyone has had some experience of happiness and love to be able to relate, however the margin for misunderstanding is slightly more than the word pencil. Now when we talk about God and Ultimate Reality and infinity we head into rougher waters because nobody can have a true experience of these things...NOBODY.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

Especially those in philosophy?

Sometimes when I drift off in thought it becomes hard for me to put certain ideas in words, and it's even more difficult to remember exactly I was thinking. It seems at times the process is more in ideas/feelings than anything else.

Is there a flaw in language? Are there words for higher ideas that we lack simply because we never think in that way? From my experiences I believe it to be so.

Do you believe language places a limiter on society's growth? Are we confined/conditioned to behave, to think in certain ways? And what are these higher ideas, these words that we lack?

Language is just a modulated form of association. The harder one may try to explain exactly how one feels, the harder the association becomes. This can be explained by the increased layers of depth that would lead to deeper understanding, sort of a paradox.

Everything we "feel" can all be explained by chemical processes in neurobiology. So strictly, nothing is so vague as that It can not be explained in the sense that it is to "abstract". Especially what we feel is not a subjective part of our mind or an idea, rather real events occurring in our brain. When we do think such thoughts or recollect such (happy or sad) memory, reality does show how our brain handles it.

To put this in short old sport, if we can (for now) call language communication through association, it should make things easier to understand. The real limit, the real boundaries of association, are things we cannot (most literally) associate. Happiness, sadness, nostalgia, can all be associated with a temperamental disposition upon a certain dimensional aspect of reality. (by dimensional i mean linear, as in, there are no voids or mystery in thought, for its all interpretative perception).

Consequentially, if we can fundamentally associate everything, the next question is to what degree. Moreover, to what communal understanding of agreement.

Molecularity would suggest, its all a measure of bodily balance in hormones and metabolic chemistry that prompt for different stages of "feeling".

In other words, we can convey everything through association (language, if you will).

To put this in short old sport, if we can (for now) call language communication through association, it should make things easier to understand. The real limit, the real boundaries of association, are things we cannot (most literally) associate. Happiness, sadness, nostalgia, can all be associated with a temperamental disposition upon a certain dimensional aspect of reality. (by dimensional i mean linear, as in, there are no voids or mystery in thought, for its all interpretative perception).

Agreed. If we can understand it, or at the very least 'know' it, then we can express it. The only things we can not express are things that we don't know in the first place.

Consequentially, if we can fundamentally associate everything, the next question is to what degree. Moreover, to what communal understanding of agreement.

Depends on the parties involved.

In other words, we can convey everything through association (language, if you will).

Agree 100%. The human language, specifically, is quite complex and growing by the day. And we have not only words to use, but also various 'tricks' that can get ideas across.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

If it isn't too abstract to understand it isn't too abstract for language.

Perhaps because you only use language to think?

You should try some visual mental tasks.

You can explicate any mental image using words. That's what books are.

Originally Posted by DuB

You can explicate any mental image using words. That's what books are.

... not really. I mean, you can explain everyday images, because that is the friggin purpose language was created for. But try to explain, say, a line with words.

But try to explain, say, a line with words.

Thin and straight.

edit:

Also http://www.thefreedictionary.com/line

Exactly what do we mean by language? I mean, is it only spoken language? Written? Can it include images, or like someone posted above, written music? These are all language, right? I mean, they're ways we communicate ideas to each other. Someone, let's call him Wolfgang - gets a great non-verbal idea in his head and sits down at the piano and plinks it out... isn't he communicating an abstract idea to other people?

So... if you include all the visual aids and non-verbal forms of communication, I think language gets the job done.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

... not really. I mean, you can explain everyday images, because that is the friggin purpose language was created for. But try to explain, say, a line with words.

Exactly like I wrote earlier in the thread... if you can't, you're doing language wrong. Try harder.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but conversely, a thousand words is worth a picture.