Language as technology: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Language as technology » Language as technology

Language as technology
Impact of Marshall McLuhan on philosophy

Language as technology

Shamantrixx
sociopat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Location: Croatia / Rijeka

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 180

Posted 09/15/09 - 05:03 AM: Subject: Language as technology	#1
First of all I need to introduce my self. As you can see I'm a new member, and since English is not my native language I hope that you'll have a bit of understanding for the lack of flow in my sentences. Having said that I'll move on with the subject. Few years ago I have read Marshall's "Understanding The Media", and since than I'm quite interested in technology of language. For those who are not familiar with McLuhan's ideas, the main theme of his work seams to be the relation of language and literacy with personal identity and linearity. Almost all modern concepts of our society seem to be routed in the technology of language, phonetic alphabet, literacy and print. One can hardly avoid the conclusion that emergence of language was also the emergence of the cognitive quality that we often refer to as intelligence. A few quotes could be helpful at this point: "The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way." This fits nicely into modern linguistic theory by Noam Chomsky who argues that the purpose of language had nothing to do with communication, but rather that language was a tool (technology) for internal cognitive organisation (thinking), and that communication (speech) was a further adaptation of the cognitive faculty of language. So far so good, but Marshall goes on to say: "Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy." It's important to distinguish "spoken word" from "literacy" because the latter involves the process of linear decoding of the abstract set of individual phonemes (words) that by them self have no meaning whatsoever. Literate man, unlike non literate, falls into the habit of linear perception and constant assigning of "meaning" to it. McLuhan argues that out of that linearity we get concepts like causality: "As David Hume showed in the eighteenth century, there is no principle of causality in mere sequence. That one thing follows from another accounts for nothing. (But) neither Hume nor Kant, however, detected the hidden cause of our Western bias toward sequence as "logic" in the all-pervasive technology of the alphabet. Today in the electric age we feel as free to invent non-lineal logics as we do to make non-Euclidean geometries. Even the assembly line, as the method of analytic sequence for mechanizing every kind of making and production, is nowadays yielding to new forms." This is what McLuhan calls the "reversal" of technology... "We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us." ...Nietzsche had a similar statement about drawing the conclusions and later being driven by them. --- Since this is my first post I will end it here. I don't wan't to insult anyone by overexplaining what is already obvious to you, but if you have any questions or need some clarification I'll be more than glad to answer. As far as I can see, McLuhan had little or no impact on philosophy (of language) whatsoever, and I find that to be quite strange. I would like to hear what you think about his ideas, and I apologize if you already have a similar topic that I've failed to find.
Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior. Marshall McLuhan

kevke
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:27 PM:	#2
Imho (by the way, I am also new) there is no better way to discribe technologiy with the word language. Technology without language is impossible. We use language to do our bidding. We have a close relationship to our products and therefore with the language we use to create the object we are manufacturing. We discuss the object with others and get influenced by them. We even have different names for language. Mashine language, Code, English, German, Italian etc. In order to understand the Languages we have to learn them. Each Language gets influenced by the one learning it. Therefore language is evolving. Even if you say nothing at all, one can extract knowledge from it. Therefore all things speak a language. Some of those are unified, some are divided. The spoken language, at this time, is (imho) the most divided and unified language existing. There are vocal expressions most humans agree on, like sadness, laughter, happiness and many more. But when it comes to the real thing, even neighboring countries or even towns are incapable of finding a way to communicate with another. I have to admit, I am no scientist, nor do I know any of those. I just try to do my own approach to philosophy.

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 181

Posted 11/18/09 - 09:06 AM:	#3
I think you raise an interesting point. I just finished reading a book by Steven Pinker called 'The language instinct' and I'm also currently dong a course in Language and Literacy. I don't think there is any consensus about the extent to which, or exactly how language shapes our thought processes but there is consensus that it does do so. Pinker talks a lot about how our use of metaphor reveals our thought processes and also about the relationship between language and cognitive categories. I'm quite sure that without language our world would be utterly transformed. Regarding linear causality and literacy, I follow the point although I would add that the word literacy has been redefined in linguistics to cover a wide range of practices that go beyond simply learning how to read and write. The New Literacy studies recognize qualitative differences amongst different literacies and this might widen the argument into a question of how different forms of literacy affect or define cognitive processes in different societies/cultures/language communities and perhaps even more interestingly to what end. This relates to language and power; how is language used to create and/or reinforce power structures in and between societies? (By the way, though you said you were not a native speaker, I find your writing better than a lot of others here.)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 11/18/09 - 05:58 PM:	#4
shamantrixx wrote: One can hardly avoid the conclusion that emergence of language was also the emergence of the cognitive quality that we often refer to as intelligence. So there was no intelligence before we learned to talk? What is your definition of intelligence?
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 11/20/09 - 04:55 PM:	#5
I don't see why I need words to make a spear in order to kill mammoths.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 11/21/09 - 12:16 PM:	#6
keda wrote: I don't see why I need words to make a spear in order to kill mammoths. You probable don't, but you would if you wanted to be able to communicate the idea to others. Science would not have been able to develop very well without it either. One simple definition of technology is something that makes life easier or better, that's what language does.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 11/21/09 - 12:33 PM:	#7
Technology means science of art or skill. Not everything that makes life easier or better is technology nor is technology always making life easier and better. Language isn't a science at all, it is a means of communication.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 11/21/09 - 02:21 PM:	#8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology http://www.noacsc.org/allen/ba/hs/noblet/definete.htm Read and enjoy.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.