transcending language?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » transcending language? » transcending language?

transcending language?
A messy heap of questions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

transcending language?

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/27/08 - 07:38 AM:	#31
When God says "Let there be light", behold, it is so; but when I say stuff, behold, the world completely ignores me. It may be that the world is an expression of God's word or thought, but these words I am writing are not like that. I write - 'Let there be a toasted cheese sandwichin front of me.' and not even a whiff. I bet one doesn't come your way when you read this either. So with analogical building blocks you can analogically build an analogical world of ideas, but not a real one. To act in the real world you have to go move some matter. Even to get this thought out of my head and into yours reqires pushing all these keys...
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/28/08 - 01:50 PM:	#32
unenlightened wrote: 'Let there be a toasted cheese sandwich in front of me.' and not even a whiff. ... I have the same problem with Coffee. But I disagree with the notion that language is an "analogy".
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 589

Posted 08/28/08 - 03:21 PM:	#33
Language as an analogy to reality is something that Wittgenstein suggested, correct? Words represent things in reality, he proposed, and ultimately denied as he thought about it more. I've considered, for a whilestes now, that language is an emotive construct; it exists simply for the benefit of expression. Not only were the first words of Caveman "Hungry" and "Sex" and "Shut-Up" [Well then, what were they?], but the internet has its own sprouting language of... emoticons! Indeed, Language has progressed to be more than what it was originally, but that is because we can now express more than just emotions because we have the words to do so. Somewhat circular, but is it too prudent to assume that knowledge advances along side of language?
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/29/08 - 08:51 AM:	#34
Banno wrote: But I disagree with the notion that language is an "analogy". so do I. And I do admire the way you disagreed with it just before Jack suggested the idea. Somewhere between 'the language of architecture' and 'the building blocks of language' there is a soup that simply will not fly. To say something in the language of architecture one needs concrete blocks, and concrete nouns will not suffice. Architects are well advised not to specify the building blocks of language in their plans, especially not for supporting walls.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 08/30/08 - 02:49 PM: Subject: different explanation	#35
Transcending language is possible to me but unlike what you said absolutely transcending. What I mean to say is from one language (culture) to other language. That is to say some languages watch the world clearer and others don’t. I can prove it by mathematics. Suppose language A like computer has only two letters (or information carriers say as E and F) language B has 400 letters (or information carriers), in case the world has only 400 things need to be indicated, easy to understand when the speaker of A want to indicate one of the 400 things, he has to use the combination as EFFFEEFEF, for the ninth power of 2 greater than 400. While the speaker of language B can easily using one of its letters to indicate one of the 400 things. From psychologist we know, there is a memory called working memory. It last only 2 to 3 second. If we squeeze a piece of mind in the working memory, every thing could be as clear as fresh. Over this period things would not be so clear. Easy to understand only language B can squeeze more things in working memory while as the word in language B is too long, that language can only squeeze 1/9 of language B’s statement into working memory. This example tells us that with more letters a language could transcend the barrier of a language with less, while a language with fewer letters hard to transcend the barrier of a language with more letters. If we use the life time as standard, then the speaker of language A need more than nine lives to understand the culture of language B. Cheng-Zhong Su

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/31/08 - 01:28 PM:	#36
Beware of flying soup.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

Posted 08/31/08 - 03:19 PM:	#37
Cheng-Zhong Su wrote: This example tells us that with more letters a language could transcend the barrier of a language with less, while a language with fewer letters hard to transcend the barrier of a language with more letters. If we use the life time as standard, then the speaker of language A need more than nine lives to understand the culture of language B. Cheng-Zhong Su This is assuming that the contents of language has a devastating effect on our capacity to reason and categorize. It assumes that "understanding" is dependent on words alone, and that the referential capacity of a single word is what defines our capacity to categorize in the world. Our brains help us categorize automatically without the use of words...and infants "understand" the world they come to live in regardless of the intrinsic referential capacity of a single word.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Westerien547
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 02, 2008
Location: USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/02/08 - 02:34 PM:	#38
Words are just that - superficial means of communication. I think the human race rather uses the ineffectuality of words to twist their way around what it is rather than tell the antipode - what is - because what is in our minds - and through consensus - is only as good as our sensory gives allowance for. How are words supposed to detail out emotions? Something as deep as an ardent range of emotion, that which cannot be described? I don't mean joys, but the search for internal fulfillment (in my eyes) - happiness - happiness and sadness is deep enough and different enough for everyone that it cannot be described through words. Again, the limitations of words became very apparent when they became deterred in the gray matter they're limited upon and bound to, and such information is useless in my eyes in the gray matter it's bound to as it is. That's my stance on the matter in full, anyway.

newtonsapple
Unemployable thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 09/02/08 - 04:56 PM:	#39
1)Is limiting our language by using dictionaries, and using correct grammar limiting our conciousness? As will we ever gain the correct word or words to correctly explain the aroma of coffee? Or describe the colour blue?
"Is it possible that existence is our exile and nothingness our home?"

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 09/03/08 - 02:46 AM:	#40
newtonsapple wrote: will we ever gain the correct word or words to correctly explain the aroma of coffee? "here - smell this."
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.