BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
Hell, I was hoping for a sub forum on non issue driven philosophical discussion, but that won't be happening any time soon. So I figured I'd start this thread
A little while ago, Angela Harlem and I got into a discussion on what comes first--thought vs. language. With the added interest of For Honor, we wanted to renew this discussion.
Also, this is an invitation to discuss other philosophical issues (perhaps, except religion, which seems to have ample opportunity elsewhere) that might not generate enough general FYM participation to warrant its own thread.
OK, here goes.
I think that thought precedes the desire and necessity to communicate and therefore language. However, once the method of communication has taken hold, then language can be a determining factor in influencing and sometimes controlling thought.
I read an interesting piece somewhere (Here? I don't think so, but I could be wrong) about how birds communicate. By the different sounds, they could communicate to other birds whether another predator bird was a large bird (less dangerous) or a smaller bird (more dangerous) and the other birds would react accordingly. Therefore the thought of the observing bird (or instinctive observation if you prefer) preceded the communication to the others. However, then the communication influenced the thoughts and subsequent behavior of the other birds.
I was always particularly interested in the use of language to influence how other people thought. For example, propogandists are usually pretty good at this, on the negative side. Rush Limbaugh started or at least perpetrated a new lexicon of FemiNazis and Environmental Wackos that apparently influenced his listeners (since I hear them repeating the words often enough). His use of language (sigh) had the effect of either demonizing or neutralizing with ridicule whole bodies of people to his fans in crisp little soundbites. With just these words, he encouraged his listeners to disregard any input by feminists or environmentalists without actually having to put forward a cohesive argument. (I'm not saying he didn't ever put forward a cohesive argument; I don't listen to him that closely) This is not the strongest case for my argument as in general, he preaches to the choir, but just a starting point.
It is interesting to watch how language evolves sometimes for the better, sometimes in the interests of political correctness or other more dangerous purposes. But each of those evolutions has an effect on thought and how people perceive.
Okay, it's 5:30 am my time. So I need some coffee now.
A little while ago, Angela Harlem and I got into a discussion on what comes first--thought vs. language. With the added interest of For Honor, we wanted to renew this discussion.
Also, this is an invitation to discuss other philosophical issues (perhaps, except religion, which seems to have ample opportunity elsewhere) that might not generate enough general FYM participation to warrant its own thread.
OK, here goes.
I think that thought precedes the desire and necessity to communicate and therefore language. However, once the method of communication has taken hold, then language can be a determining factor in influencing and sometimes controlling thought.
I read an interesting piece somewhere (Here? I don't think so, but I could be wrong) about how birds communicate. By the different sounds, they could communicate to other birds whether another predator bird was a large bird (less dangerous) or a smaller bird (more dangerous) and the other birds would react accordingly. Therefore the thought of the observing bird (or instinctive observation if you prefer) preceded the communication to the others. However, then the communication influenced the thoughts and subsequent behavior of the other birds.
I was always particularly interested in the use of language to influence how other people thought. For example, propogandists are usually pretty good at this, on the negative side. Rush Limbaugh started or at least perpetrated a new lexicon of FemiNazis and Environmental Wackos that apparently influenced his listeners (since I hear them repeating the words often enough). His use of language (sigh) had the effect of either demonizing or neutralizing with ridicule whole bodies of people to his fans in crisp little soundbites. With just these words, he encouraged his listeners to disregard any input by feminists or environmentalists without actually having to put forward a cohesive argument. (I'm not saying he didn't ever put forward a cohesive argument; I don't listen to him that closely) This is not the strongest case for my argument as in general, he preaches to the choir, but just a starting point.
It is interesting to watch how language evolves sometimes for the better, sometimes in the interests of political correctness or other more dangerous purposes. But each of those evolutions has an effect on thought and how people perceive.
Okay, it's 5:30 am my time. So I need some coffee now.