For the linguistic Idealists among us: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » For the linguistic Idealists among us » For the linguistic Idealists among us

For the linguistic Idealists among us

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

For the linguistic Idealists among us

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/27/03 - 08:02 AM:	#1
http://books.guardian.co.uk/lrb/articles/0,6109,1068323,00.html This is a review by the psycholinguist, Jerry Fodor, of a recent book called "Thinking without Words." Another antidote for linguistic idealism.

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 10/27/03 - 03:11 PM:	#2
Gassendi1 wrote: http://books.guardian.co.uk/lrb/articles/0,6109,1068323,00.html This is a review by the psycholinguist, Jerry Fodor, of a recent book called "Thinking without Words." Another antidote for linguistic idealism. While I know there are a number of ways of thinking, and I know this from having read John Dewey, J.H. Robinson, R.H. Thouless as well as Heidegger and Derrida's work---To talk about, "Thinking without Words" is more akin to talking about words without thinking--- Like Derrada and Heiderrer language with their muddy jargon and what we took to be its literal meaninglessness.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 190
Total Posts: 4507

Posted 10/27/03 - 03:57 PM:	#3
Darkcrow wrote: While I know there are a number of ways of thinking, and I know this from having read John Dewey, J.H. Robinson, R.H. Thouless as well as Heidegger and Derrida's work---To talk about, "Thinking without Words" is more akin to talking about words without thinking--- Like Derrada and Heiderrer language with their muddy jargon and what we took to be its literal meaninglessness. Why won't you address Fodor's arguments?
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 10/27/03 - 05:01 PM:	#4
TecnoTut wrote: Why won't you address Fodor's arguments? I leave that to someone who has read “Thinking without Words by José Luis Bermúdez”, I don’t care to argue for or against Jerry Fodor’s interpretation of what Bermúdez means. I just don’t accept the idea---that there is such a thing as “Thinking without Words.”.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/28/03 - 09:29 AM:	#5
darkcrow wrote: I leave that to someone who has read “Thinking without Words by José Luis Bermúdez”, I don’t care to argue for or against Jerry Fodor’s interpretation of what Bermúdez means. I just don’t accept the idea---that there is such a thing as “Thinking without Words.”. ____________________________________________ Well then, of course, we can just dismiss the notion, and, along with it the mountains of research that show that apes and chimpanzees, and even, to a certain extent, dogs, can make inferences. Galileo: "Please look through my telescope. You will see the moons of Jupiter." Theologians: "Certainly not. We just don't accept the idea that there can be moons around Jupiter. And besides, Aristotle said there cannot be." Five centuries pass: Animal psychologists And TT: "Won't you just look at the research that shows animals can think?" Dark Crow. "Certainly not. I just don't accept the idea that there is such a thing as thinking without words. And, besides, Derrida has said there can't be." The more things change, the more they remain the same.

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 10/28/03 - 10:46 AM:	#6
Gassendi1 wrote: ____________________________________________ Well then, of course, we can just dismiss the notion, and, along with it the mountains of research that show that apes and chimpanzees, and even, to a certain extent, dogs, can make inferences. Galileo: "Please look through my telescope. You will see the moons of Jupiter." Theologians: "Certainly not. We just don't accept the idea that there can be moons around Jupiter. And besides, Aristotle said there cannot be." Five centuries pass: Animal psychologists And TT: "Won't you just look at the research that shows animals can think?" Dark Crow. "Certainly not. I just don't accept the idea that there is such a thing as thinking without words. And, besides, Derrida has said there can't be." The more things change, the more they remain the same. Again, as with your concept of truth, it’s fine by me if you want to call what bacteria does as “thinking.”. Now we have truth thinking,--- as I understand your reasoning of both truth and thinking. I can agree---in its loosest sense, thinking signifies everything that goes through our minds. Citation: John Dewey---“In this sense, silly folk and dullards think.”. But where is the dignity, or truth, or usefulness, in idle fancy, trivial recollection, flitting impression, or building sand castles in the air. Citation: John Dewey---“that loose flux of casual and disconnected material that floats through our minds in relaxed moments are, in this random sense, thinking?
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Hyperborean
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Location: MI, US
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/28/03 - 03:16 PM:	#7
The word "thinking", as well as other words, appeared as a necessity to make things more precise both in our mind and to each other, in order to think and to communicate in a more rigorous way. I think higher-level animals do separate concepts in their mind, creating some sort of symbolic representations, which is a first step towards thinking in words. Human beings at their current stage of development are the next step. By the way, words are not enough in some scientific fields, additional and more complicated symbolics comes into play, which can be argued to be a next step that may replace natural language (or say linear language) constructs in some areas of high mental activity. Maybe with the growth of necessities of the civilization people will start thinking in even more sophisticated categories, such as manipulating highly structured images in their minds even at everyday life.. In any case, I believe that we do think with words most of the time, if you call thinking the highest-level intellectual activity of human beings. They are natural constructs, a sense of rigid separation of concepts developed for better mental manipulation and more effective communication. Am I right?
Smile

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/29/03 - 12:12 AM:	#8
Hyperborean wrote: The word "thinking", as well as other words, appeared as a necessity to make things more precise both in our mind and to each other, in order to think and to communicate in a more rigorous way. I think higher-level animals do separate concepts in their mind, creating some sort of symbolic representations, which is a first step towards thinking in words. Human beings at their current stage of development are the next step. By the way, words are not enough in some scientific fields, additional and more complicated symbolics comes into play, which can be argued to be a next step that may replace natural language (or say linear language) constructs in some areas of high mental activity. Maybe with the growth of necessities of the civilization people will start thinking in even more sophisticated categories, such as manipulating highly structured images in their minds even at everyday life.. In any case, I believe that we do think with words most of the time, if you call thinking the highest-level intellectual activity of human beings. They are natural constructs, a sense of rigid separation of concepts developed for better mental manipulation and more effective communication. Am I right? _______________________________________________ My own view is that if anything is thinking, it is the ability to draw inferences: for instance to draw the inference from the sound of footsteps approaching the front door, (and. perhaps, that it is early evening) that the owner of the house is approaching the front door. Both humans, (even very small children) and animals, like dogs, have the ability to do this. So, they are thinking.

Hyperborean
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Location: MI, US
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/29/03 - 04:23 AM:	#9
Gassendi1 wrote: _______________________________________________ My own view is that if anything is thinking, it is the ability to draw inferences: for instance to draw the inference from the sound of footsteps approaching the front door, (and. perhaps, that it is early evening) that the owner of the house is approaching the front door. Both humans, (even very small children) and animals, like dogs, have the ability to do this. So, they are thinking. "if anything is thinking, it is the ability to draw inferences" I think this "definition" is way to broad compared to mine. I would require some creativity, some sort of awareness of the situation for a process to be called thinking.. My computer can perform complicated logical inferences and I would never call it thinking.. And besides, in the process of such an inference, when the objects of your analysis are not as directly observable as footstep sounds or sunset, don't you have to keep some sort of symbolic representation of those more complicated objects in your mind? Having a sense of object in your mind is already some rudimentary form of linguistic thought (i.e. mental process that manipulates recognizable internal symbols in order to reach effective new conclusions). At least I see it that way...
Smile

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 10/29/03 - 02:42 PM:	#10
Hyperborean wrote: "if anything is thinking, it is the ability to draw inferences" I think this "definition" is way to broad compared to mine. I would require some creativity, some sort of awareness of the situation for a process to be called thinking.. My computer can perform complicated logical inferences and I would never call it thinking.. And besides, in the process of such an inference, when the objects of your analysis are not as directly observable as footstep sounds or sunset, don't you have to keep some sort of symbolic representation of those more complicated objects in your mind? Having a sense of object in your mind is already some rudimentary form of linguistic thought (i.e. mental process that manipulates recognizable internal symbols in order to reach effective new conclusions). At least I see it that way... ________________________________ I did not say that the drawing of inferences is all there is to thinking. I meant that if anything is what you would call thinking, that is. A being who could not draw inferences would not be a thinking being. So, I meant that the drawing of inferences was a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of thinking.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.