"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
If there be permitted no means for such expression, none shall speak as consequence.

All unspoken ones then? — creativesoul

No. All thoughts are unspoken. Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed.

What exactly are you calling "nonlinguistic thought"?
— creativesoul

Any thought that doesn't involve language. — Merkwurdichliebe

All unspoken ones then?
— creativesoul

No. All thoughts are unspoken. — Merkwurdichliebe

So, what counts as not involving language?

:brow:

So, what counts as not involving language? — creativesoul

Definitely not speech or writing. Hmmmm...I just can't seem to find a good example that illustrates thought that doesn't involve language.

Hmmmm...I just can't seem to find a good example that illustrates thought that doesn't involve language. — Merkwurdichliebe

So, you're saying that non linguistic thought is any thought that does not involve language, and you cannot offer an example of that.

That would explain the dismissal of non-linguistic thought/belief.

Wouldn't it be better to realize that the approach you've been using is inadequate for taking proper account of it?

Certainly we agree that some language less creatures are capable of thinking?

Non linguistic thought/belief are correlations drawn by a language-less creature.

Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed. — Merkwurdichliebe

I find this quite problematic, my friend...

Statements are statements of thought/belief.

Statements are statements of thought/belief. — creativesoul

Statements are statements of thought/belief — creativesoul

I said speech is not identical to thought.

Statements are something else. Not all statements are posited in the form of speech, and not all speech counts as a statement. Statements can also be thought or written.

So, it would be more correct to say: statements about thought/belief are statements, regardless if they occur in thought, speech or writing.

I see nothing philosophically interesting there to talk about. Looks like an exercise in arguing semantics.

I have yet to determine the means by which there has been made commitment of mere blindness toward much of what is to accord with the condition unto unto which we have sought to ascribe precedence. All manner of imagery; that which is to be regarded as pictorial in form, can subsist in thought, in spite of the absence of certain aspects thereof which insofar as each be present, serve to facilitate linguistic expression.

Imagery of object's, irrespective of content, can be regarded as distinctly representative of instances' in which no such modalities are conferred, and would as consequence fulfill the criterion you have set forth.

Suppose that one has chosen to conceive of a material object; its sight is then retained in the mind of the subject. One can offer recognition of the form of such an object, and differentiate it from what is without true semblance, with respect to itself, whilst inferring certain attributes of each, which reflect unto one another through associations hitherto drawn.

Thus, we have made discernment whereof imagery, inasmuch as it pertain solely to a particular sight, is an instance of non-linguistic expression, and by virtue of that, the same sentiment holds true as a matter of thought.

Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's pretty much where you go astray.

I see nothing philosophically interesting there to talk about. Looks like an exercise in arguing semantics. — creativesoul

I don't see much of an argument here. Speech and statements are distinct, just as thought and speech is distinct. So what's the problem?

Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That's pretty much where you go astray. — Banno

Why, is speech blue and not red? Or, is it that "medium through" does not include "medium". What nonsense criticism are you trying to get away with this time?

Speech and statements are distinct, just as thought and speech is distinct. So what's the problem? — Merkwurdichliebe

The problem, I suspect, is the framework you work from. My suspicion is that there are inadequate criteria at work.

Settle it for me.

Thought, speech, and statements...

What counts as each?

That speech and thought are not divorced in the way you describe.

But it's s much a part of the picture you have in mind that it will make no impact on you.

Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That's pretty much where you go astray.
— Banno

Why, is speech blue and not red? Or, is it that "medium through" does not include "medium". What nonsense criticism are you trying to get away with this time? — Merkwurdichliebe

That criticism wasn't nonsense. It was not understood by you, apparently. It was spot on though, given the context.

All manner of imagery; that which is to be regarded as pictorial in form, can subsist in thought, in spite of the absence of certain aspects thereof which insofar as each be present, serve to facilitate linguistic expression. — Vessuvius

Thus, we have made discernment whereof imagery, inasmuch as it pertain solely to a particular sight, is an instance of non-linguistic expression, and by virtue of that, the same sentiment holds true as a matter of thought. — Vessuvius

Thanks. That makes sense.

It was spot on though, given the context. — creativesoul

I don't know what you were reading, it was a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.

Whether or not Banno's remarks are irrelevant nonsense is neither established nor determined by your belief about them. I think Banno was spot on in more than one way. Your neglect to directly address much of what has been argued here is telling.

I agree with you here. I can think about doing anything at all, for example, eating my dinner, without saying a single word, even to myself. It seems obvious to me that much of what we think is in images, movements, sensations, sounds, and feels, not in words.

@Merkwurdichliebe is the chap who answered Monty Python quotes for two pages...

Doing philosophy is not his purpose here.

Thought/belief begins simply in it's constitution and grows in it's complexity. All thought/belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between different things. In the simple stages of thought/belief, those correlations are drawn between all sorts of different things... all of which are directly perceptible.

Existence is not.




Thanks for the tip... being the all too trusting chap that I am, I do not recognize insincerity very well.

Hm. Take care to note what I was addressing:

Speech is not thought, it is a medium through which thought can be communicated/expressed. — Merkwurdichliebe

And, preceding that,

All thoughts are unspoken. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure we can think in images and so on. That's fine. Merk is saying much more.

Settle it for me.

Thought, speech, and statements...

What counts as each? — creativesoul

I don't intend to settle anything. Rather, allow me to stir things up with some opinions...

Thought is the product of thinking. Thinking can produce either linguistic or nonlinguistic thoughts ( distinctions/correlations).

Speech is the product of speaking or making audible words with one's mouth. It is an audible mode of language that depends on linguistic thought. But it does not directly reflect linguistic thought, rather it mediates it beyond thinking, and into something perceptible that is meant to communicate thought.

Statements are the product of language, or rather, grammar. Anywhere language exists, statements are possible...they can be linguistically thought, spoken, or written.

I'm sure these statements are inadequate, but I wrote them anyway.

Pretty much the theory critiqued in the first few pages of the Philosophical Investigations.

So, Merk, have you a reply to Wittgenstein's critique?

Is nothing amiss when 'thought' and 'speech' have to be defined? Aren't we repeating the issue with 'exist'? We already know how to use these words.

A few phrases that we cough up on demand don't begin to do justice to the complexity in our effortless employment of these words when we aren't tangled up in a peculiar game.

Yes!

To EricH

'Naive realism' can be thought of as a reporting mode which assumes that the 'thinghood' of what we call 'objects' has nothing to do with the needs of the observer who 'things' them.

Compare your breakfast scenario with one in which 'seamless coping' was interrupted.
Mugging scene from Crocodile Dundee
(...Punk pulls out stilleto and threatens Mick and Sue..)
SUE:' Careful Mick...he's got a knife'
MICK Knife ?(..pulls out his big bush knife...)'That's a knife !
(...Punk flees)

Note how the 'thinghood' of 'knife' is being negotiated according to its contextual utility.
It is my assertion that all 'things' are contextually defined and potentially subject to negotiation. You discard naive realism when you realize that.

Pretty much the theory critiqued in the first few pages of the Philosophical Investigations.

So, Merk, have you a reply to Wittgenstein's critique? — Banno

Cool. Do you know the specific pages? I want to check it out. Then I will do my best to reply.

It needs and deserves more than a quick read.


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4520/philosophical-investigations-reading-it-together