And language can't have evolved by being passed on vocally from one to another.

Or can't have begun from zero.

So this suggests language existed before the spoken word.

Thanks. I feel like I've caught up now, right back to the beginning.

Thought uses language to formulate idea, theories, etc.

Communication is one aspect of language -- — Xtrix

What would be an example of another aspect of language?

I think you’re being arbitrary. Run your eye up that line I was talking about, through the petite bourgeoisie until you find the corrupt. You jump from the apple farmers to Amazon as if there’s nothing in between.

Was 3M corrupt in their initial intentions? I don’t know if they were or not. People were happy to have an innovation like fire retardants in children’s pyjamas. Just like today people are happy with vaccinations. If in the future it turns out vaccines weren’t a good idea are we going to suddenly accuse those pharmaceutical companies of corruption, of getting rich at the expense of peoples’ health?

So what? All those pieces are correct. — Xtrix

I’m just leaving my trail of breadcrumbs.

What's incorrect is the statement "language then is a social function." That's taking one aspect of communication (namely, phatic communication) and using this to define language generally. That's incorrect. The characteristic use of language is not communication, whether phatic or informational: its characteristic use is for thought. — Xtrix

Is this where posting gets tricky? I’m suggesting there are two modes of thought expressed through two modes of language. One, phatic, having a social function is what I’m calling primitive, and the other is for information: teaching, giving directions, etc.

Maybe, as you say, phatic expression is not an expression of thought, that it’s something similar but different.

There's an infinite amount of information that can be exchanged - I don't understand the relevance of that question. You can pick literally any example you'd like. Giving someone directions is exchanging information. Teaching physics is exchanging information. — Xtrix

Okay, I just wanted to confirm that.

No, language then is for thought. — Xtrix

Yes, but the thought expressed as phatic expression is essentially functional, in the sense of being socio-pragmatic, which is what I’m calling primitive because it’s purpose is ancient.

So there are two forms of language.

So not inadequate but mostly phatic in function and to a lesser degree information. What does the information consist of?

Edit: language then is a social function, cohesive and bonding.

I'm not sure what "confirming" refers to hear. "Emoting" is also vague -- one can emote without language. Animals can emote as well in this sense. Furthermore, one can communicate emotions without language -- through a hairstyle, by slamming doors, by mien, by gait, etc. — Xtrix

That’s true, but it doesn’t mean language isn’t also doing that.

But I’ll go along with the use of language being thought and that what does get externalised is a strange, inefficient or inaccurate, form of communication.

So language is inadequate for communication?

Edit: or there is only so much we wish to communicate through language.

Or language serves very primitive needs.

Or language is deception.

So let's do the same thing with language. What's the characteristic use? — Xtrix

It seems to have different uses: enquiring, confirming, emoting.

Turns out we've discussed this before: — Xtrix

Yes, but I didn’t feel I’d made any ground.

I think you’re getting cranky @Bitter Crank

Does the owner of an apple orchard need to be condemned because he produces and trades his goods? I think it’s wrong and destructive to use definitions so loosely and bitterly.

Maybe we should be done with it and call them Oligarchs.

The function of language has always been thought to be for communication, as you know. I just think that's completely wrong, which is where this thread started. — Xtrix

I may have missed it (I’ve realised my reading of posts is a bit dodgy at times) but if it’s not communication then what is it?

Maybe we need a new word here. I was wondering at what point on a descending line we would find a capitalist business that is not really one of exploitation and destruction, because obviously all business is not like that. There are businesses out the in the world that thrive on good employer/employee relationships, that are responsible and contribute to society and our wellbeing. Maybe we need a new word for the thing we are talking about here. Maybe it’s not capitalism at all.

Hi, Bill. Be patient, the moderators should be waking soon. Hopefully they’ll help.

But you are attempting to undermine my position while not engaging. What's that about? — Punshhh

It's a symptom of the socio-cultural state of the nation. — Punshhh

Is it a healthy symptom? In what way might you regard it as healthy and therefore constructive, not for you alone, to maintaining a functioning society?

I am alarmed by someone flagging this thread for not being philosophical. I am not sure how moderators here handle such conflicts of interest, between those who want to remain blind to reality and keep everything pleasant, and those who want to raise awareness of problems with the hope we will use knowledge to resolve problems. Science comes out of philosophy, let us hope those who love philosophy do not turn their backs on science. Doesn't philosophy mean a love of knowledge? Should we shut down threads that are knowledge of things we don't want to think about? — Athena

This is possibly another reason why my posts are so critical.

I don’t think there’s any point bringing up facts and figures with you because you’ll just dispute that and it becomes an endless conversation of referencing. I resist your posts because I regard you as part of a destructive movement that does no one any good. What began as a worldwide discussion on temperature figures escalated into a doomsday view of life. To help clarify my position I’m copying my post to @Athena.

“It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are.

Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past.

What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association.

“Even if the changing weather patterns did not lead to our doom, our refusal to live with the limits of our environments and the limits of the planet, will take us down. Just as every civilization before us fell, including the fall of Rome and South American civilizations.”

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear.”

There is no contradiction in what I said. Also as far as I know I'm simply repeating the official line. — TheMadFool

Yes, I know it’s the party line. I’ve done the reading. As I said I just find it hard to accept a sentence or idea containing the words ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’.

My goodness, that is a strong criticism. — Athena

It is strong criticism. My only concern is that it might be counter productive.

The fact that you suggest particular books to read that would “change” my mind means you’ve already put me in a particular camp, where I approve of mindless destruction in the name of capitalism.

It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are.

Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past.

What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association.

“Even if the changing weather patterns did not lead to our doom, our refusal to live with the limits of our environments and the limits of the planet, will take us down. Just as every civilization before us fell, including the fall of Rome and South American civilizations.”

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear.

I don't know how much Anthropology has caught up with this idea, so this is only speculation. It looks to me that during a previous catastrophic global flooding most of humanity was wiped out in a stroke. Leaving small pockets surviving at altitude, certainly in the Himalayas, possibly the Ethiopian highlands etc. This may have happened more than once and is talked about in ancient mythology. — Punshhh

It’s these sort of posts that undermine you’re position; most of humanity wiped out in a stroke, speculation, possibly, ancient mythology. How can we take that seriously?

I’m disappointed that nobody in this thread seems to know what anarchy actually is. — Pfhorrest

At least, in anarchy, you know who is in charge of you personally and you can negotiate with them yourself, kill them and take their place, or leave. At least in tyranny you know whose palace to storm and whose head to put on a spike, knowing that whoever comes next will at least be something different. — Eric Wintjen

It’s not so much an ignorance of anarchy as a refusal to accept only one of the two, and the idea that there is no long term survival without overthrowing democracy. There are anarchic communities in the world, but they also survive within a democratic world. Tyranny would not allow their existence.

where do the people who live in cities, which will find themselves below sea level, go, and what will they eat? ( — Punshhh

It might be interesting to compare the number of cities affected by sea levels to those so far removed they experience nothing. It’s also worth remembering that cities do not produce their own food, so they would get food from the same sources they always do.

And why warlords?

Belief has to be true for it to count as knowledge. Right? — TheMadFool

Is that true? I’m genuinely not sure. It doesn’t seem to add up to me. Does it mean that belief can be counted as knowledge? How so?

Edit: in relation to this:

“So, there's no truth in such beliefs - beliefs that there's a calamity waiting for humanity just round the corner? Geeks have it wrong then.”

Therefore, democracy is happily busy destroying itself. — alcontali

I don’t believe this for a minute. I do see democracy struggling to deal with modern issues. But democracy is the only system in which better systems can evolve from. Whatever it’s failings it’s a dynamic system capable of absorbing radical ideas and converting them into functional models of government. It’s an organic system that functions on “ debating, negotiating, voting, or discussing”, and reflects exactly how people behave in communities.

Edit:

There is simply no long-term survival possible without overthrowing the democratic regime. — alcontali

What’s your evidence for this idea?

So, there's no truth in such beliefs — TheMadFool

Truth in beliefs? I’m sure you know better than that.

The roots of the case date back about two decades, to a period when the company, then known by the name France Télécom, was still part of the government's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. Once a state-run monopoly, the company sold off most of its shares and underwent a process of privatization in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

That process left its employees in an uncomfortable situation: still enjoying the strong employment protections of civil servants, but working for a management structure newly constrained by the marketplace and looking to shed costs to compete.

I imagine this to be a huge clash of cultures and those workers caught caught in the middle and didn’t have the skills to adapt. That doesn’t exonerate the company but I can’t think of two more diametrically opposed attitudes about work.

It's a symptom of the socio-cultural state of the nation. — Punshhh

So the rest of the world is fine.

or is it that the geek-intelligence relationship is just a misconception — TheMadFool

I think they got just enough of an education to lead them to think they’re intelligent.

@Athena. @Punshhh. @iolo

What a bunch of pathetic, self indulgent losers. I don’t believe any of you really believe what you write. You insult everyone that’s come before you to forge a life out of nothing.

yet I still have some resistance to life and to people. — Lori

Sometimes it’s a bit surprising to find out who we are, as if there’s some danger in accepting that. So instead we try to overcome it with ideas about who we should be. There’s so much talk about individuality and yet very few seem prepared to live it. Those who actually do are regarded as slightly eccentric. I find those people to be very interesting. Just who are we meant to be, even as spouse or parents, is there only one way to do things, to how we chose to live?

http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/oddballs.html

The reason I asked your age is because it seems more like the condition of someone older, not young. It sounds like the feelings of people recently retired, mainly men, but that’s because I talk with other men more than women that age, I suppose. Not much fun, I imagine, feeling that way at 47.

I’m generally reluctant to hand out advise, and I wouldn’t take on board too much of what you might read on this forum. Despite the nature of the forum I wouldn’t expect too much in terms of intelligence here.

It’s interesting that you’ve put so much time into intentional development, a “ seeker” as you call it. I’ve always thought of those efforts and programs as suggestive of something, as if it’s something to be acquired by numbers, but for some reasons not always clearly understood.

I don’t think your feelings about others are so unusual, even though you seem to wish they were different. Maybe you’ve expected too much of yourself and your only just realising what your own life is about; its just like everyone else. Living with less seems so worthy and aspirational but it’s quite an adjustment. The idea of ‘being here now’ is such a different thing to actually live than aspire to.

How old are you? Maybe you mentioned it but I can’t see it.

Goodbye philosophyforum.

It is clear too that much of what we call 'language' is common to other species like, bodily gestures, — fresco

cognitive deflationists (Behaviourists) would argue that there is nothing special about 'languaging' which amounts to no more than a complex behaviour which enhances social co-ordination. — fresco

If what we call “ language” in other species is really instinctive behaviour, then could this not mean that thought is also an instinct of humans and language the evidence of that, just as the behaviour of bees is evidence of an instinctive behaviour towards a threat or building a hive.

Why is all thinking in humans not equal, why Einstein and those who produce concepts and thought experiments? Is it a big assumption and error to think that those thoughts are the same as the thoughts that go on all the time in our heads throughout the day? In those circumstances are we choosing to think or just responding instinctively like bees.

So our communication is no more special than that of bees. What I’d call “common thought” produces very little of significance, and our language just as limited in its use. So there’s nothing special about thought or language. I’m not even sure, as an instinct, that thought does us much good, or as much good as we expect from it.

So then, maybe language isn’t communication, that it’s not the way we should be communicating, that we have not evolved in the way we imagine we have.

Tim white asked if language is not communication then what is it? But isn’t the question then if language is not communication then what is the way we really communicate? Or are we really communicating at all?
If we could really communicate wouldn’t the world be a different place?

I thought my post was unreasonable. I see I was wrong.

It is clear too that much of what we call 'language' is common to other species like, bodily gestures, — fresco

But their “language” would not be connected to thought but to behavioural instincts. So to me it’s not so common. Is that a fair statement?