If you say that there is nothing without language, then you needlessly exempt language from explanation. There is a causal story to be told about the development of language, part of which is that we evolved from creatures without it. Perhaps there is no understanding without language, but there is existence without understanding. Ultimately, our species' peculiar use of sounds and markings is merely a fact among others, not a condition of the world's existence.
things are a certain form of events. events came into being through language. so language is the mother of all things. therefore language(or relation) is more real than things. is this where you stand?
so....you are saying relation is as real as thing. becoz language is what makes everything happen. i'm guessing that your intention is to put this vid as an extension of the prior discussion.. which was about materialism.
"It is impossible to overrate the importance of words for the paranoiac. They are everywhere, like vermin, always on the alert. They unite to form a world order which leaves nothing outside itself. Perhaps the most marked trend in paranoia is that towards a complete seizing of the world through words, as though language were a fist and the world lay in it”.
An interpretation of Daniel Paul Schrebers book "Memoirs of a nervous iIlness"
From "Crowds & Power" of Nobel prize winner Elias Canetti.
For some reason I'm tying this together with Hume's Bundle Theory. The existence of the properties of an object can only be held in our awareness. My interpretation could be all wrong. I find the concept fascinating, but I'm torn in terms of agreeing with it. The definition of existing is in its action. Language is a tool, and has gone far beyond mere reference. It is full of tropes and metaphores. It seems to have changed the foundation of existence from one of action to one of thought.
But we still referenced without language though. In order for friction there has to be different objects. I understand what you're saying. It's a matter of perspective. If we don't think to reference the "things" that are causing the events, the many small parts of the "machine," then it is simply an event. This same argument can even be made with time; outside of an awareness of events it is just the same instance; one continual event. Outside of any awareness, there may be nothing at all.
@Professoranton Maybe for some but not for all. For I think in nonlienear ideas No, those ideas are not in language. They are emotions and understanding of nature of things, the usefulness, the limitations, the functionality, association of related ideas, and how they exist. Then when i need to communicate my ideas with others i have a buffer//compiler type sub-process, which often does not work so well (like now), that tries to organize this information into language.
@masluxx for instance, i do not look at a door handle and say to my self, "door handle: something to open a door with". But i recognize it's function as something to open a door with, then if need be i will call it a door handle. Everything i see does not need the label of words. However the function of everything must be taken into account. How could I even walk, w/o knowing the function of that which I walk on, does it need a name or do i just understand that it will hold me.
Nonhuman animals can see another animal being slaughtered, or smell the stench of "death," and realize they are about to die. Also, a chimpanzee can give a particular warning for a particular predator. Thus the sound evokes the image just as a particular sound does for humans.
In order for humans to have and use language, they must first be taught such. When language is taught, mirror neurons within the brain associate emotion & gestures to words. And sounds & signs are associated with images
Thus human language may be much more sophisticated than the song of a whale, the warning cries of a chimp, or the territorial calls of a bird; but language does not give humans supernatural/magical powers. All that we are as humans stems from our complex language & the ability to use such. But our complex language itself is only possible probably because of an inherited instinct for song & mimicking, which is enhanced by observation & experience. Babes will bob to mom's hum before they can speak
I feel like this means that life only exists with language. That wouldn't make sense because life is to hard to describe by saying our lives exist because of language. Sounds like the chicken or the egg. Did life make language or did language make life?
I completely understand what you speak of. To create a word is to manifest a vibration, to manifest a vibration is to disturb the stillness (or what we perceive to be the stillness) thereby blinding us from what is in all probability the true nature of reality.
also you said "One cannot say what is outside of language" I agree if you are referring to Gods word. I disagree if mans. I believe you can experience outside of mans language. In fact the most intense experience one will have is babyhood, when more brain activity here then any other time in one's life. Baby's are without language but still experience.
"language allows us to turn events into objects" <<< Once again, look at what God did to prevent an object when the tower of babel was being built... He attacked language.
My filosofy is that the word "I" does not exist without the word "other" and others.. Because we are all connected and are individuals as well. We label things with words. Makes communication easier.
You write, "we look at how scientists behave, we see that they all (either tacitly or explicitly) act on the assumption that there is some objective reality." I'm not haggling about "object reality" nor I am trying to advance an anti-realist position. I would only suggest that "things" is a word, and a very abstract one at that. To speak is to deal in abstractions. Too many people think of language as an occasional tool, not part of who we are.
Applying science to all areas of life I find highly problematic. There seems a significant difference between socio-historical issues (e.g. romantic relationships, legal cases, political protests), all of which seem different than that which is subject to scientific method (that which repeats). The ethical, while not independent of science, is not reducible to science. There is lots of once-occurring "meaning" in the human realm & science is pretty weak at dealing with what does not repeat.
Of course we can (and commonly do) try to say what is independent of language, but we fool ourselves if we forget that our symbols and words are forms of creative speculating, They are kinds of lies, or metaphors.
It is not just that "we" can't speak without language, it is that, without language, there is no "we" who could not speak. Where and how big is the "we" without language? There seems to be lots of reification in your comments.
There is a difference between what seem to be objects on their own, (e.g. pen and door stops), and those "objects" such as days of the week (e.g. periodic, recurrent events), and also complex and historically imbedded relation-states (e.g ex-mother-in-law or future lawyer). The sticking point is that you cannot without paradox say what is independent of language.
And conceptual objects do seem to change or to never have been fully set initially: vacation, success, life, news, problem, etc.
One cannot say what is outside of language. This does not mean there is nothing beyond or outside of it; it means that there is neither one nor many events, neither perception nor process, no becoming or biological stuff. We might try to talk that way, and we may even make sense as long as we remember that we are talking, using these "as if." The trouble starts when we fail to see ourselves are caught up within the known.
A chimp needs no words to grab what we call a pen (or Kügelschreiber) and scribble with it or poke it into a termite nest to get breakfast. Mice don't need language to distinguish between foods and non-foods, or to avoid banging into walls. "Things" clearly exist in the internal models of rodents (and robots). When it comes to what WE think or do, language is the key to making an I into one of US.
"...the man who is born into existence deals first with language; this is a given. He is even caught in it before his birth." - Jacques Lacan
Lacan would agree, that we cannot even be said to exist until we are within the symbolic order. Our parents name us as infants and stake out a position in this order which remains an empty place holder until we have mastered speaking a language (though, for Lacan, language is the Other and so remains the real master).
Nothing, otherwise (without language), can be said to exist. Most animals do just fine (avoiding obstacles, finding food and mates) without language. Social animals depend on some sort of "language" to build a higher order entity (bee dance, usw). Human beings are "bees" in a network of minds (technical civilization) which produces vast results never seen before on earth. In turn, the "bees" are programmed by the network (and individual circumstances.)
If you say that there is nothing without language, then you needlessly exempt language from explanation. There is a causal story to be told about the development of language, part of which is that we evolved from creatures without it. Perhaps there is no understanding without language, but there is existence without understanding. Ultimately, our species' peculiar use of sounds and markings is merely a fact among others, not a condition of the world's existence.
TheRedHutt 5 months ago
I think you've just proved that "There is nothing that cannot be put into words".
MrTallSouth 5 months ago
one of your best videos for sure. never saw this one
TDP788 6 months ago
do you have good book recommendation on philosophy? Is kant a good place to begin or other philosopers?
erdal0 6 months ago
@erdal0 Go look at Sartre for Beginners, and also the Handbook of Epictetus.
Professoranton 6 months ago
@Professoranton thanks. I already found the audiobook on youtube :)
erdal0 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
things are a certain form of events. events came into being through language. so language is the mother of all things. therefore language(or relation) is more real than things. is this where you stand?
TheSeungjin 6 months ago
that was pure class, my friend. great video,sincerely! i love the punctuation of the last sentence, it was at the same time funny and brutal....
carlo88moe 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so....you are saying relation is as real as thing. becoz language is what makes everything happen. i'm guessing that your intention is to put this vid as an extension of the prior discussion.. which was about materialism.
TheSeungjin 6 months ago
Language: one doesn't need to know X to know y.
So, did Eminem study x to know y?
No. It is all about USING the mofo..
peace
VitaM1977 6 months ago
: )
lucidlark 6 months ago
jibberdy jabberdy mumbo jumbo
outsidemendham 6 months ago
"It is impossible to overrate the importance of words for the paranoiac. They are everywhere, like vermin, always on the alert. They unite to form a world order which leaves nothing outside itself. Perhaps the most marked trend in paranoia is that towards a complete seizing of the world through words, as though language were a fist and the world lay in it”.
An interpretation of Daniel Paul Schrebers book "Memoirs of a nervous iIlness"
From "Crowds & Power" of Nobel prize winner Elias Canetti.
Contextcatcher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ugly piece of shit.
chrysXtal 9 months ago
For some reason I'm tying this together with Hume's Bundle Theory. The existence of the properties of an object can only be held in our awareness. My interpretation could be all wrong. I find the concept fascinating, but I'm torn in terms of agreeing with it. The definition of existing is in its action. Language is a tool, and has gone far beyond mere reference. It is full of tropes and metaphores. It seems to have changed the foundation of existence from one of action to one of thought.
Joyness333 9 months ago
Comment removed
Joyness333 9 months ago
But we still referenced without language though. In order for friction there has to be different objects. I understand what you're saying. It's a matter of perspective. If we don't think to reference the "things" that are causing the events, the many small parts of the "machine," then it is simply an event. This same argument can even be made with time; outside of an awareness of events it is just the same instance; one continual event. Outside of any awareness, there may be nothing at all.
Joyness333 9 months ago
Thanks, he say's expressing gratitude, does gratitude exist, REALLY, I think NOT.
babylonIZfallin 9 months ago
@Professoranton Maybe for some but not for all. For I think in nonlienear ideas No, those ideas are not in language. They are emotions and understanding of nature of things, the usefulness, the limitations, the functionality, association of related ideas, and how they exist. Then when i need to communicate my ideas with others i have a buffer//compiler type sub-process, which often does not work so well (like now), that tries to organize this information into language.
masluxx 9 months ago
@masluxx for instance, i do not look at a door handle and say to my self, "door handle: something to open a door with". But i recognize it's function as something to open a door with, then if need be i will call it a door handle. Everything i see does not need the label of words. However the function of everything must be taken into account. How could I even walk, w/o knowing the function of that which I walk on, does it need a name or do i just understand that it will hold me.
masluxx 9 months ago
i learned this with LSD
sexdrugsRnR 9 months ago 2
What about Language creation? Shakespeare apparently brought 10,000 new words into "our" language...
changetheoscar 10 months ago
Fantastic Video :)
TomoTheGuitarMan 10 months ago
the concept of communication is one of the most fundamental parts of a system
WiseWeeabo 10 months ago
So if you didn't know how to speak you wouldn't have a life?
ExotathXVIII 10 months ago
Comment removed
brokennarcissist 10 months ago
" " = )
2ruthfox82 10 months ago
Nonhuman animals can see another animal being slaughtered, or smell the stench of "death," and realize they are about to die. Also, a chimpanzee can give a particular warning for a particular predator. Thus the sound evokes the image just as a particular sound does for humans.
In order for humans to have and use language, they must first be taught such. When language is taught, mirror neurons within the brain associate emotion & gestures to words. And sounds & signs are associated with images
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Thus human language may be much more sophisticated than the song of a whale, the warning cries of a chimp, or the territorial calls of a bird; but language does not give humans supernatural/magical powers. All that we are as humans stems from our complex language & the ability to use such. But our complex language itself is only possible probably because of an inherited instinct for song & mimicking, which is enhanced by observation & experience. Babes will bob to mom's hum before they can speak
unseenstrings 1 year ago
I favourited this a long time ago... just going through the list again. This is one of your more 'to-the-point' vids.
invanorm 1 year ago
I feel like this means that life only exists with language. That wouldn't make sense because life is to hard to describe by saying our lives exist because of language. Sounds like the chicken or the egg. Did life make language or did language make life?
TheJacobWoods 1 year ago
LOL
TheJokest 1 year ago
Thanks
Professoranton 2 years ago
I completely understand what you speak of. To create a word is to manifest a vibration, to manifest a vibration is to disturb the stillness (or what we perceive to be the stillness) thereby blinding us from what is in all probability the true nature of reality.
leointx 2 years ago
also you said "One cannot say what is outside of language" I agree if you are referring to Gods word. I disagree if mans. I believe you can experience outside of mans language. In fact the most intense experience one will have is babyhood, when more brain activity here then any other time in one's life. Baby's are without language but still experience.
bkeach 2 years ago
You are correct, but there is a reality that is so regardless of our language and that is the spoken word of God.
bkeach 2 years ago
"language allows us to turn events into objects" <<< Once again, look at what God did to prevent an object when the tower of babel was being built... He attacked language.
bkeach 2 years ago
Well that makes sense.. It was by the Words of God Which caused the universe we reside in.
bkeach 2 years ago
In the beginning was the Word.
Professoranton 2 years ago
I've been watching a bunch of steven pinker vids latley. you familiar?
i downloaded skype by the way
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
My filosofy is that the word "I" does not exist without the word "other" and others.. Because we are all connected and are individuals as well. We label things with words. Makes communication easier.
Brulluhman 2 years ago
You write, "we look at how scientists behave, we see that they all (either tacitly or explicitly) act on the assumption that there is some objective reality." I'm not haggling about "object reality" nor I am trying to advance an anti-realist position. I would only suggest that "things" is a word, and a very abstract one at that. To speak is to deal in abstractions. Too many people think of language as an occasional tool, not part of who we are.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Applying science to all areas of life I find highly problematic. There seems a significant difference between socio-historical issues (e.g. romantic relationships, legal cases, political protests), all of which seem different than that which is subject to scientific method (that which repeats). The ethical, while not independent of science, is not reducible to science. There is lots of once-occurring "meaning" in the human realm & science is pretty weak at dealing with what does not repeat.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Of course we can (and commonly do) try to say what is independent of language, but we fool ourselves if we forget that our symbols and words are forms of creative speculating, They are kinds of lies, or metaphors.
It is not just that "we" can't speak without language, it is that, without language, there is no "we" who could not speak. Where and how big is the "we" without language? There seems to be lots of reification in your comments.
& I mean mostly natural language, everyday stuff
Professoranton 2 years ago
There is a difference between what seem to be objects on their own, (e.g. pen and door stops), and those "objects" such as days of the week (e.g. periodic, recurrent events), and also complex and historically imbedded relation-states (e.g ex-mother-in-law or future lawyer). The sticking point is that you cannot without paradox say what is independent of language.
And conceptual objects do seem to change or to never have been fully set initially: vacation, success, life, news, problem, etc.
Professoranton 2 years ago
One cannot say what is outside of language. This does not mean there is nothing beyond or outside of it; it means that there is neither one nor many events, neither perception nor process, no becoming or biological stuff. We might try to talk that way, and we may even make sense as long as we remember that we are talking, using these "as if." The trouble starts when we fail to see ourselves are caught up within the known.
Professoranton 2 years ago
A chimp needs no words to grab what we call a pen (or Kügelschreiber) and scribble with it or poke it into a termite nest to get breakfast. Mice don't need language to distinguish between foods and non-foods, or to avoid banging into walls. "Things" clearly exist in the internal models of rodents (and robots). When it comes to what WE think or do, language is the key to making an I into one of US.
prhughes0 2 years ago
"...the man who is born into existence deals first with language; this is a given. He is even caught in it before his birth." - Jacques Lacan
Lacan would agree, that we cannot even be said to exist until we are within the symbolic order. Our parents name us as infants and stake out a position in this order which remains an empty place holder until we have mastered speaking a language (though, for Lacan, language is the Other and so remains the real master).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Nothing, otherwise (without language), can be said to exist. Most animals do just fine (avoiding obstacles, finding food and mates) without language. Social animals depend on some sort of "language" to build a higher order entity (bee dance, usw). Human beings are "bees" in a network of minds (technical civilization) which produces vast results never seen before on earth. In turn, the "bees" are programmed by the network (and individual circumstances.)
No humans without a tribe (or civilization)
prhughes0 2 years ago
pen, pencil.
innovator Penkal
ther4 pencil
Realizalize 2 years ago