4 ms·

I have had some astonishing discussions where people actually refuse to accept that the verbal part of the thinking (talking in my head) is almost insignificant

I have had some astonishing discussions where people actually refuse to accept that the verbal part of the thinking (talking in my head) is almost insignificant part of what thinking actually is. Or to be accurate, people claim that language is somehow crucial component of thinking. To me that is really weird idea, and I think that it can even be "proved" to be wrong (obviously my opponents disagreed also there) Namely, if language or verbal thinking was the defining part of thinking, following two things would necessarily be true: 1. There would need to be significant concepts that people talking different languages think differently. But of course, those are extremely rare and not so significant exceptions. Even if in some languages age is something a person owns and in another something a person is (I have 20 years vs I am 20 years), people in both languages both grasp the idea of age similarly, it is the time since you were born. 2. If the verbal thoughts were what thinking actually is, there would be no difficulties to convey my thought to you without errors. But obviously that is very difficult for anything but the most trivial thoughts. So it should be obvious that language is really only a very vague presentation of what thoughts really are.

gizmo686 9y ago
>There would need to be significant concepts that people talking different languages think differently. Not necessarily. If you study linguistics you will find that (human) languages are very similar. So it is possible, that lanugage is a central part of thinking, but the differences between languages are too minor to have significant effects. I agree with point 2 though.
- beefield 9y ago
  That is a valid point. But to give context, the discussion I refer to was about whether there are reasons to keep small languages alive. And my opponents argument was that losing a languagle loses also ways to think, whereas my argument was that language is to a very good approximation means to communicate, nothing more, nothing less. so there is no reason to keep small languages alive. (My native language is a relatively small language)
JackFr 9y ago
> ... there would be no difficulties to convey my thought to you without errors. But obviously that is very difficult for anything but the most trivial thoughts. The sentence itself is evidence against.
- beefield 9y ago
  I think that is pretty trivial thought. To go tto the other end, if thinking is verbal, why can't I pick a book where Einstein explains general relativity and immediately grasp it?

gizmo686 9y ago

>There would need to be significant concepts that people talking different languages think differently. Not necessarily. If you study linguistics you will find that (human) languages are very similar. So it is possible, that lanugage is a central part of thinking, but the differences between languages are too minor to have significant effects. I agree with point 2 though.

beefield 9y ago
That is a valid point. But to give context, the discussion I refer to was about whether there are reasons to keep small languages alive. And my opponents argument was that losing a languagle loses also ways to think, whereas my argument was that language is to a very good approximation means to communicate, nothing more, nothing less. so there is no reason to keep small languages alive. (My native language is a relatively small language)

JackFr 9y ago

> ... there would be no difficulties to convey my thought to you without errors. But obviously that is very difficult for anything but the most trivial thoughts. The sentence itself is evidence against.

beefield 9y ago
I think that is pretty trivial thought. To go tto the other end, if thinking is verbal, why can't I pick a book where Einstein explains general relativity and immediately grasp it?