I’d respond that that is probably your view as well. It was also mine when I was in college. Took me awhile to realize that it was a product of my own ignorance rather than some fault of philosophy. — Joshs

Gracias!

Gracias! — Agent Smith

בבקשה

So we are back to your recalcitrant reluctance to read.

"Intersubjective" is one of those oxymoronic terms that folk use to avoid thinking. If the subjective is private, then the notion of the "inter" subjective makes no sense. If the subjective is not private, then adding "inter" to it is superfluous.

Nothing is solved by waving such a word around.

And you should have learned by now that Meta has no idea.

Is there a philosophical argument that attempts to prove that language & thought are the same? — Agent Smith

See Language of thought.

You might have to do some reading, I'm afraid. Unless you can find a short youtube video that will allow you to think you have understood a complex issue without the discomfort of putting some effort into it.

I look from the scientific side. Not the philosophic side. — Hillary

There's your problem, right there. You are attempting to solve philosophical problems with the wrong tools.

Language doesn't enact realities. It's merely a means of reinforcing and express them. — Hillary

That's just wrong. Get a hold of How to do things with words. Learn something new.

Playing with words is not my problem. That's the easy part. It's the ideas that count. And language plays a minor role in the world of developing ideas.

language plays a minor role in the world of developing ideas. — Hillary

Risible.

Frisible! Prisible! Trisible! Chrisible! Chrisbible! Christ, the Bible!

Risible. — Banno

You mean it does?

You are not a fool. You are aware that without language there could be no science.

Math is just a means to express science quantitatively. The ideas precede their transformation into math.

As if science papers consist only in mathematical expressions; and as if mathematics were not language.

As if science papers consist only in mathematical expressions; and as if mathematics were not language. — Banno

I knew you would bite! No of course not. But by looking at a physics article in Russian I could see what was done by looking at the math only.

and as if mathematics were not language. — Banno

Math is a language.

Math is a language. — Hillary

That's what I said.

So did I. But you suggested I didn't.

The structured symbols in any language, if you know how to read them in the right way, can trigger ideas in your brain, and it can be used to transform these ideas into symbolic form. It will always be an abstraction, but the brain is versatile enough to connect the right ideas with the language used. So both to express ideas as to inform about ideas, language does well. And sometimes it can inspire new ideas.

Language doesn't enact realities. It's merely a means of reinforcing and express them. — Hillary

language plays a minor role in the world of developing ideas. — Hillary

Math is a language. — Hillary

Math is just a means to express science quantitatively. — Hillary

Ah. I agree that language may reinforce and express ideas. I disagree with your contention that it does not enact realities. As evidence, consider:

• The reality of this conversation is enacted via language.
• The reality of a promise or a command are enacted via language.
• The reality of such institutional entities as money, property, or marriage are enacted via language.

One might be misled by considering only the development of scientific ideas. People do much more than just look around and make up theories.

As evidence, consider:
The reality of this conversation is enacted via language.
The reality of a promise or a command are enacted via language.
The reality of such institutional entities as money, property, or marriage are enacted via language. — Banno

Don't think that's evidence. If I hadn't learned English, the connection would not be made. No enactive activity would take place.

I disagree with your contention that it does not enact realities. — Banno

Language per se doesn't enact the reality. It's the con"text" of language that does the trick. The words "morning dew" trigger a complete visionary or even sensory reality. The equation F=ma triggers an image of pulling and pushing, of motion, of change, of mass even. And the relation between them. Change F=ma in Fuck ma! and look what happens to the F, m, and a! "Morning dew" or "F=ma", or "Fuck ma!" are just black symbols, black lines with particular shapes. And it depends on context what you make of it.

If I hadn't learned English, the connection would not be made. No enactive activity would take place. — Hillary

...and hence language is what enables the activity to occur.

Language can be used to describe. It can also be used to enact. "I name this ship the Black Pearl" makes it true that the ship is named the Black Pearl. "I promise to see you tomorrow" makes it the case that I have promised to see you tomorrow.

and hence language is what enables the activity to occur. — Banno

Of course. It enables the expression of a world in a larger context. Language itself doesnt enact.

Think on it some more. You have just encountered something new. Take your time.

Words are not just names used to passively set out how things are. We make statements, we ask questions, we give commands - much more than just saying something, our utterances are acts.

Consider:
"I now pronounce you husband and wife"
"I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth"
"I give and bequeath my watch to my brother"
"I bet you a fiver it rains tomorrow"

These are not mere descriptions. They are what Austin called performative utterances. Each makes something the case; that the couple are married, the ship named, the ownership of the watch passed on and the bet offered, if not accepted.

Notice that such utterances are not either true or false; if they misfire, it is in some other way than by truth value. — Banno

Language can be used to describe. It can also be used to enact. "I name this ship the Black Pearl" makes it true that the ship is named the Black Pearl. "I promise to see you tomorrow" makes it the case that I have promised to see you tomorrow. — Banno

To enact. But it doesn't enact itself. When you have learned a word, the whole context is connected. And if you see that word again, the context "clicks" in.

Indeed, that is how we do things with words. They are not only descriptions.

Indeed, that is how we do things with words. They are not only descriptions. — Banno

Indeed. I don't deny that. Learned words can't be seen apart from what they enact. But the enactivation is not contained in them. They can cause enactment, but do they themselves enact? Or is that exactly what is meant? Language enacts realities or causes realities?

I mean, foreign language doesn't cause a reality in me. The words have to fall in fertile soil. I can remember the strange experience of suddenly understanding Italian.

Language enacts realities. Our social institutions have language as their basis.

"I promise to meet with you next Tuesday."

With that very utterance, the promise is made, and the obligation created. Uttering the sentence "I promise to meet with you next Tuesday" counts as placing myself under the obligation to meet with you next Tuesday.

Promises are an example of a type of performative utterance that makes something the case. — Banno

But the enactivation is not contained in them. They can cause enactment, but do they themselves enact? — Hillary

I've been unable to follow your point here.

What I mean is, language itself, the symbols, contain no reality. The symbols are little works of art. On their own they are just curvy lines. But in the fertile soil of our brain they cause a flood of ideas, feelings, bodily stuff, etc. Call it enactivation.

Our social institutions have language as their basis. — Banno

:chin:

does your philosophy have psychological underpinnings? — Agent Smith

“Psychological underpinnings” sounds like you think it is not a rational (analytical) claim or argument. As to learning about our motives, philosophy began as a search for self-knowledge, to better ourselves by being aware of what is right and true. I’m not claiming our thought is shaped by our psychology (though what is Plato “remembering” but what we call unconscious). Our doubt, and fear, and desire for certainty are situational, part of being human.