3 ms·

There's no mention of external in that definition though and internal verbalization is also often considered as a form of expression... If you shout in the for

by mtrimpe 12y ago

There's no mention of external in that definition though and internal verbalization is also often considered as a form of expression... If you shout in the forest and nobody hears you; are you not still expressing your self?

lutusp 12y ago
> If you shout in the forest and nobody hears you; are you not still expressing your self? No, because this fails the definition of "expressing yourself". An expression is defined as -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expression http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expression -- "the act of making your thoughts, feelings, etc., known by speech, writing, or some other method" Notice the word "known" in the middle of this definition. Known by whom? The person expressing the ideas already knows them. Therefore by definition one is making oneself known to a second party, someone other than the speaker. > ... and internal verbalization is also often considered as a form of expression ... Not as the word is defined and commonly understood.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mratzloff 12y ago
  Sure you are. When speaking internally people set up a "mirror" of themselves, speaking as if to another person (despite any internal pronoun use like "I"). If someone yells something in the forest, they are speaking to, variously, a personification of nature, the world, a god, themselves (as described above), or perhaps more literally an imagined companion. Expression is not about the effect but the intent, even if it's subconscious.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    Your explanation would require resolution of the mind-body problem -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem -- which doesn't have a widely accepted resolution. The tl;dr: arguing that another hypothetical person is present by reference to the mind, is a non-starter, except among psychologists.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by mtrimpe 12y ago

lutusp 12y ago

> If you shout in the forest and nobody hears you; are you not still expressing your self? No, because this fails the definition of "expressing yourself". An expression is defined as -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expression http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expression -- "the act of making your thoughts, feelings, etc., known by speech, writing, or some other method" Notice the word "known" in the middle of this definition. Known by whom? The person expressing the ideas already knows them. Therefore by definition one is making oneself known to a second party, someone other than the speaker. > ... and internal verbalization is also often considered as a form of expression ... Not as the word is defined and commonly understood.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mratzloff 12y ago
Sure you are. When speaking internally people set up a "mirror" of themselves, speaking as if to another person (despite any internal pronoun use like "I"). If someone yells something in the forest, they are speaking to, variously, a personification of nature, the world, a god, themselves (as described above), or perhaps more literally an imagined companion. Expression is not about the effect but the intent, even if it's subconscious.
- lutusp 12y ago
  Your explanation would require resolution of the mind-body problem -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem -- which doesn't have a widely accepted resolution. The tl;dr: arguing that another hypothetical person is present by reference to the mind, is a non-starter, except among psychologists.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]