What is Language?

[jcliveron]

words are suppousedly mean to be our limits of knowledge not the knowledge of a thing get it?

[oooodaxteroooo]

id like to contradict. we do not exist in language. frustration, an orgasm etc. are mere symbols. these feelings exist without a label. and pretty much as with colors we do never know if these things mean the same feeling for somebody else. we just know we use the same symbols. through language we can sort of make ourselves understood, but we dont exist in it. these feelings have meaning in themselves in as much as they are distinct from each other (remember: colors), they dont need words.

[theenglishteacher33]

This video was quite instructional and interesting. Aren't you making more videos anymore?

Thanks for this one anyways, I enjoyed it.

[ronaldonmg]

I just want to say that it's perfectly possible to think without having words, or at least to think things you don't have words for (yet).

Do you really supppose that deaf-mutes or speechless animals don't think?

[gerrywhite]

Words are just one type of language. Anything within the symbolic order is language, anything that represents something outside of itself. There is a signifier and what is signified. Shapes, images, and even feelings could be language. We use language to discuss, even with ourselves inside our own minds, what we experience. What do you th

[TDP788]

i thought of something that had no symbol, but i gave it one. it was a black hole jungle that was whispering and summoning me

[Tyrfingr]

Advanced grunting

[ameshabyebye]

mega interesting....

[A1R5N1P3R]

I speak American.

[KiraVicious]

@A1R5N1P3R you speak all the languages from the american continent? or just english?

sarcams much?

[A1R5N1P3R]

@KiraVicious sarcams? Now that's english; Sarcasm - that's American. See? Americans are smarter than you too...

[KiraVicious]

@A1R5N1P3R Well I'm American 'cause I was born in the same continent as you that's called "American" continent. Also as far as I know the official language from USA is english.

USA education system is a complete shit.

[RankAndFileGuy]

@KiraVicious There is no official language of the United States. English indeed is dominant, but it's not the offical language of the US.

[KiraVicious]

@RankAndFileGuy Really? I didn't know that

[Xazened]

You should listen to the teachers of Bashar. They are odd, but still provide a VERY interesting perspective on the concept of the self.

[ChezspeedySPEEDY]

I wonder if it's just an impression, but even if I'm French, I often understand better complex theories when they are explained in English...

[taboosun]

Very nice explanation of language. I thought I had understood this subject on a deeper level, but you brought more understanding to my consciousness and have helped in the expansion of it as well. The three words especially helped show how language really is the environment we live in.. Its interesting to think about. Thanks..

[Amaglev]

As someone applying to read Linguistics at an English University this year, this is a very interesting and valuable video to me. Thanks.

[vjsophie]

woow, thanx to post that, now I finally understand De Saussure!

[musicalmarion]

The power of language is so strong, that you need your hands so much?

[brazilianspiritzz]

body language, part of language.

[Israe5l]

HOw about this? There are passive use of language and active use of langanguage. Passive type are like empirical statements. One observe and turn that into language. (A description.) While active use of language, humans enter the field of language. One may defend his position or one may attack other's position. (Of course, what I am doing here is description. But you will get the point.) One stand on some description. And then put a spin towards what is going on.

[Israe5l]

I am trying hard to argue that there maybe a bifurcation in language.

signifier-->otherSignifier(s) or experience.

signifier=digital;experience=a­nalog.

Someone may object, our brain is digital. Because neurons fires as on/off. BUT I will argue, the neurons firing is not cordinated like the computer is. The timing between the neurons are analog. Computer is working with a "clock".

[Alhambrachezmoi]

Excellent video excellent ideas!!!

[Israe5l]

I been thinking of language between the binary: empirical language (collection of all the empirical objects) and conceptual language (the word given by the system of language). And the two merge in the structure of the structuralism. (Well, I really don't know what structurealism is. So, I am just throwing it out there so that someone will correct me.) (signified=empirical. signifier=conceptual.)

[Israe5l]

Ok I must admit, if one picks up any continental philosophy book, you are bound to read the world is through and through language. But to be realistic that does not seem what I experince. True if one tries to express one's experience it will always be in language. But in experience there is no tag (or label or signifier) attached to it. Pure experience.Its a mess, because language and experience is mixed. We need to separate them out. Ask D.Davidson.

[Israe5l]

ONe thing. signifier which is the label of an object and such as the combination of letter to make a word: "dog" is made out of "d""o""g". And the target of the word is different. The target of "dog" is dog-ness. (Which in my argument is the signified.) These two things are different.

[Rasoolpuri]

Nice

[elenahwow]

thank you very much for this lecture, you are very good!

[bbkingzor]

To me, language is a matter of definition. Every form of life has some form of language or communication, even insects.

[CJM052]

this is very interesting, thank you for posting it. i feel the assertion that language is arbitrary seems to make a lot of sense. however, it seems that there is at least one exception- onomatopoeia. the words 'moo' or 'buzz' were created with a very specific purpose in mind- to emulate a sound. is there anyway you could clear that up for me?

also, just a side note- the idea that one's ability to communicate a 'thing' defines that 'thing' itself is an absolutely terrifying thought!

[Israe5l]

"language is arbitraray seems to make a lot of sense." I am not sure you got it. The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. (Signifier is the spelling/vocalizing of the word. Signified is the actual object. Signified is the actual structure in the world. Nothing arbitrary about it.)

[CJM052]

i disagree. Because the relationship between the signified and the signifier is arbitrary, the structure is also arbitrary. This is not to say the function of language is arbitrary but examine the very idea of an "object of a word." The signified is nothing more than a signifier in terms of human perception, and is often a chain of differential signifiers. In a sense, where one draws the line between the sig/sig is arbitrary because the referent is undecidable and radically subjective

[Israe5l]

Convincing, but I can not make you out.How are you useing the term "arbitrary"?What is it to mean "signified and signifier is arbitrary"?For me it is better put, the constitute of signifier is arbitrary. Say, a "dog" can be anything. "alkhdfgl;w" could suit for "dog" as well. So the label is arbitrary. "Structure is also arbitrary"?Structure is arbitrary connected to the label (or signifier); but I can not see, structure it self is arbitrary. Is this a consipiracy against the empirical langauge?

[Israe5l]

let me fix everything I been saying. signifier is the label (or speech/writing). (Therefore signifiers are arbitrary made.) And signified can be two things: concept (collection of signifiers) or empirical object(s).

...thinking...

"Where one draws the line bewteen the sig/sig is arbitrary". Now that is a new thought for me. OK I got it. So structure includes sig/sig. Right? Therefore you do not want to tolerate the empirical signified. The world must be all sig/sig.

[lordfredfine]

"Signified is the actual object": I would not say this is correct. 'Signified' is our mental representation of the actual object. I think this representation might actually be influenced by the word we (do not) have for it.

I suggest you all to read "Cratylus" by Plato.

[Israe5l]

I think CJM04 has a point. That things can be signifiers too. But as I said I think the most wise way to deal with is to admit that there are two things: concepts (collection of signifiers) and empirical objects.

What did Plato say?

[sallysall]

Love this video, great work, friend! In an excellent class on Cultural Studies currently and came across your link in the recommended links section. So lovely to hear God's name mentioned along with the names of great human thinkers. May He bless you richly, and keep up the great work :)

sally b

[iyerranjit]

Very nice video and explanations. My interest in language came about very recently as a sort of realization about what the limitation of language could be. I realized that each time i'd try to consolidate my world-experiences I was restricted to using words like illusory, evil, benevolent, meaningless, only those concepts that language offers. Can there be limits of what language offers? looking forward to your lectures..thanks.

[halessaregis]

That's really cool. I already knew Ferdinand's theories but not about Lacan. If you know any book that I could read more about, send me the name pleeeease! I was studying that in the college...

I'm reading Geoffrey Flinch now...

Well, anyway, nice explanations!

[thesonking1]

Rock on.

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD, and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. Get ready for the WORD to shine forth miracles and wonders like never before.

[ZombieJesusBrainz]

why are there so many relegious folks hanging around the philosophy stuff on youtube? It must be an american thing! I hate it when they put relegion and philosophy togeather in a bookstore as much as when they put philosophy and self help togeather (ouch!)

when theology enters a debate, i really think it has no relevance to any of the issue at hand.