I would agree that (some)thought is prior to language. Not all thought is prior to language.

This is a bit irrelevant.

The question is whether or not one's language use determines ones subsequent thought(s).

What use of language could determine subsequent thoughts, when it is thought itself that determines the use of language? Thought cloaks itself in language.
If you are considering it the case that a certain concatenation of thinking will designate an outcome regardless of the will of the thinker, which is simply simulated by the thinker, then thought itself is at base deterministic and thus consciousness, what it will think and make of itself based on what it claims to know, is already determined; and therefore there is no freedom?

There are other types of languages: painters' language, musicians' language, wine-tasters' language, chefs' language etc. etc...

A painter's language is about visual impressions, shadows etc. etc. Wine-testers language is about taste and can be translated with vocabulary related to a variety of wine-taste descriptions.

Consequently, it is hard to determine which of the languages guide our not-lingual and lingual thoughts. It is also hard to determine how and if a language guides our lingual thoughts...

Hearty, :cool:

It is perhaps hard, but thought is apart from language. If thought is defined as activity of consciousness then not all thought is language. If one thinks of past memories or of the future, one often does not do so with language solely. Perhaps language is accompanied, but fantasies and images constitute much of thought, and furthermore these images and fantasies inspire language. Language is inspired. And the thought is the impetus of the inspiration.

Perhaps language is accompanied, but fantasies and images constitute much of thought, and furthermore these images and fantasies inspire language. — Blue Lux

Maybe we could take the painter's "language" as a proto-language - in which colours and shades are "words" - that predates our verbal language...

Practically whatever we express - and how we express it - has a syntax - and is translatable into our verbal language...

Our differences are not so great. You think of only verbal language emerging from non-verbal expressions. I agree with a remark - non-verbal expressions are also a language in its own right... (Consider body language for example.)

Practically all we express is expressed in a language. Sometimes we even create a "language" with its "words" and "syntax"...

Hearty, :cool:

Isn't this primarily based on languages that hold vastly different structures from each other and grammar that is different? I mean, I'm from Sweden so I speak both Swedish and English, their structure and grammar is pretty much the same and I can bounce between them quite easily. However, people who've learned languages like Mandarin, which has an entirely different structure and verbal handling, that's where one might find differences in the thinking process.

However, I agree that the most common idea about this is the one about a painter speaking and writing with visual words, the musician in words that revolves around sound, the wine-taster about taste and so on. However, is that a product of the mind or might the interest have been fueled by the language, i.e when interests were forming, did the language used influence what path an individual took?

"Thoughts are the shadows of our emotions; always darker, emptier and simpler."
Friedrich Nietzsche — Blue Lux

It is precisely the intelligibility of language that makes thought prior to language, and which makes thought determine what language one will use. — Blue Lux

Depends on what you would call thoughts it seems to me.

Are emotions thoughts? Nietzsche doesn't seem to think so, otherwise he wouldn't set them apart like that in that quote...

Is an emotion that we just become aware of allready a thought, or is it only a thought when we reflect on it and categorise it in language, so we can understand what it is?

Maybe thought isn't only determined by language, but it still is an essential component of what a thought is?

Is thought interchangeable with expression? Thought is itself an expression? Or is thought prior to expression?
It seems thought can be a sort of expression of existence, but it is not limited to this. Thought is at base a relation, not an expression.
And so if thought is at primordially a relation and not an expression, it seems that its 'operation' does not necessitate it being a language.
Language is, furthermore, communicability. Thought is not tied to being communicable. I would say 99% of 'thought' is completely incapable of being communicated. Thought is a relationality.
And therefore there is no fundamental contingency between thought and language, only in terms of expression.

@ChatteringMonkey Reflection creates representations of experience. Nietzsche has distinguished between emotion and thought, but he has called thoughts the 'shadows' of emotions. They, in a sense, represent emotions, but they cannot adequately be said to be mere representations. Does a shadow 'represent' a figure? A shadow is a figure displayed atop certain determinants, and these determinants create a distinctly different figure... The figure would be the emotion, and the thought would be the shadow.
Consciousness is to be aware that one is conscious. To be conscious implies certain fundamental ties; intentionality--consciousness is always consciousness of something. It would not be consciousness that is conscious of an emotion... It would be being conscious of being consciousness (of) an emotion. Consciousness is always consciousness of something, and therefore the emotion is not separate from that consciousness. It is that consciousness. There is not a mysterious ego behind the scenes that experiences everything and is categorizing it as it goes. It is its experiences, and such a categorization comes subsequently, in relation to what is manageable and capable of being related. Thought is not the Creator of phenomena. It is the relationality of phenomena. Emotions are proximal to consciousness. Emotions constitute our facticity... Much different than thought.
Emotions, formless and impoverished in their concepts seem to be the current of the ocean that would be the interconnectivity of volition fragmented, serving the many 'forces' of emotions that 'provide' or sustain thoughts, which are at base simplified amalgamations of obscure happenings. Emotions seem to be a sort of foundation for the concatenation of thought.
@Christoffer

Is thought interchangeable with expression? Thought is itself an expression? Or is thought prior to expression? — Blue Lux

I believe that sequentiality is our stumbling block. There are two kinds of expression - habitual and nonhabitual. Habitual expressions do not need thoughts - they only need to react in a quick-paced dialogue...

The common mistake is that we think in an orderly fashion: something → thought → expression. That's not the case. We are having several iterations of interplays between intent to express and nonhabitual expressions - until we decide that the expression is good enough. (Intent ↔ expression)

As I was drafting this reply - I had several attempts to express myself. Each time my expression grew in detail - until the draft was acceptable. That's exactly how we think... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool: