I never agreed to this. Knowing what certain statements mean makes transmitting knowledge much easier but young kids are obviously also capable of thought even though they don't know a language. Language is not necessary for thought, I think that proposition is absurd. It would even imply that cavemen were incapable of thinking but had that been the case we wouldn't have survived. You don't need a personal monologue running 24/7 to think
Reason is required for knowledge. Language is not required for reason. Language is a form of knowledge. You cannot define knowledge without having the word "justified" or "validated" in the definition or else arguing with you is futile because if you don't have something like that in your definition then literally any statement is knowledge if one believes in it strongly which defeats the purpose of having the word "knowledge" when it just means "strong belief" — khaled
The kid knows what "there is a cup on the table" means... — khaled
Knowledge, as I have defined it (a belief that stems from applying sound syllogisms) is not possessed by kids who have not reasoned their beliefs. There is every reason to deny a kid that... — khaled
Not accepting reason as the basis for knowledge is a completely untenable position. — khaled
Reason is required for knowledge. Language is not required for reason. Language is a form of knowledge. — khaled
Thinking about thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language use. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.