How is it that communicating an idea can help you understand it better
yourself?

If it's a bad idea, the contradictions will immediately appear and
then you'll have to be as dogmatic as a libertard, creationist or
other fundy not to reject it.

If it's a good idea then there won't be too many inconsistencies.

Bret Cahill

But you can conceptualize w/o words.


Bret Cahill

But you can conceptualize w/o words.

But you can conceptualize w/o words.

Bret Cahill

On 7-Jun-2007, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Path:
news.ThunderNews.com!dartmaster!s03-b01.iad01!s02-b06.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.250.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
Subject: On the Proper Use of "Thinking in Words"
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:59:16 -0700
Organization:http://groups.google.com
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <1181264356.178518.8...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.129.55.227
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1181264357 16971 127.0.0.1 (8 Jun 2007
00:59:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:

How is it that communicating an idea can help you understand it better
yourself? Like an object in your field of vision that was a blur,
until you focused on it, we often find that half way through
explaining the problem, the solution becomes obvious.

One clue is that in figuring out how to say something, we tend to be
figuring out what we are trying to say. The end result, phrasing an
idea, shows that you have put your finger on it.

So what kinds of understanding can we expect to gain from thinking a
concept into words, what is it good for? And what is it not good for,
to what ends would it be a waste of time?

After examining these two sides of the question, the proper use of
this faculty - of thinking in words - should be easier to define.

Language can glue together the different parts of an idea. Aspects
such as time, place and details each have a distinct nature in your
mind, but in a sentence, they fit neatly alongside one another. Each
component plays it's own part but all dress in the uniform of language-
symbols, and, with some effort, are made to stand in formation. For
wildly different ideas, syntactic language provides a common format.

Choosing which words to use forces you to consider what's important
make a fitting explanation, you are categorising and judging the
components of a situation, to look for a meaningful structu

Often times if we are left to our own thoughts for an extended period of a
time, our views can become extreme but if we communicate those views to
others such as we often do here on Usenet, balance can be restored. I'm
sure there are cases where an idea proves to be flawed because of a glaring
omission. Perhaps in some cases, the knowledge that our ideas will be
exposed to public scrutiny causes us to impose balance to our views before
we hit the post button.

--
It's not possible to turn a ho' into a housewife but by the same measure, it
is not possible to debase what is noble.

On Jun 8, 1:59 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:

How is it that communicating an idea can help you understand it better
yourself? Like an object in your field of vision that was a blur,
until you focused on it, we often find that half way through
explaining the problem, the solution becomes obvious.

One clue is that in figuring out how to say something, we tend to be
figuring out what we are trying to say. The end result, phrasing an
idea, shows that you have put your finger on it.

So what kinds of understanding can we expect to gain from thinking a
concept into words, what is it good for? And what is it not good for,
to what ends would it be a waste of time?

After examining these two sides of the question, the proper use of
this faculty - of thinking in words - should be easier to define.

Language can glue together the different parts of an idea. Aspects
such as time, place and details each have a distinct nature in your
mind, but in a sentence, they fit neatly alongside one another. Each
component plays it's own part but all dress in the uniform of language-
symbols, and, with some effort, are made to stand in formation. For
wildly different ideas, syntactic language provides a common format.

Choosing which words to use forces you to consider what's important.
What's the essence of the idea and which details matter? Before you
make a fitting explanation, you are categorising and judging the
components of a situation, to look for a meaningful structure you can
fit the words around. So even before you come to terms with it,
whatever it is, the act of seeking the right terms changes your
perspective to something more coherent.

The conventions of constructing a complete sentence, force one to look
more closely at the relationships of the parts. Connections between
ideas are shown in the structure of the sentence. Up to a point, a
better understanding means fewer words are needed, and simpler
statements can be used. Again it's the attempt to phrase something
that clears up our thoughts. The phrase itself simply shows the
result.

The other benefit of syntax, and the rules it imposes on putting
language together, is that gaps or contradictions can immediately
become more stark. If you are struggling to make a clear and
consistent explanation, then the points of most trouble are often the
points of least understanding.

No one learns a language in isolation. The words we use represent
concepts found in the culture, and our vocabulary as a whole
represents an intellectual inheritance that extends to the origins of
the language. A word of substance by itself, has a general meaning,
and in applying it to something specific, we cannot help but be
mindful of broader implications that the label represents. Some words
carry more judgement than others, such as "take" versus "steal". This
may be true even if they are sometimes interchangeable, such as "new"
versus "novel".

Choosing the right word requires a distinction from wrong ones. Wrong
words may be close, but not seem quite right. The contrast we see when
making this decision adds meaning to the idea that we're trying to
name.

Bigger concepts are rendered through sentence construction, and the
statements that we come up with, can themselves be combined to
something bigger again. In joining our ideas we get a fuller, clearer
picture, with each part gaining meaning from it's place amongst the
others.

More connections makes an idea more memorable, and so putting
something in context by putting it in a statement, helps us to summon
that idea in the future.

Language structures are finite and tangible, in constrast with the
ideas they represent. Because of this we can repeat a sentence more
easily than we can repeat most other kinds of idea. Repetition also
makes an idea more memorable. The new situations in which it's used
can add meaning that ingrains the idea more firmly still.

Defining the question helps us to see if we are answering it. Whatever
task we are trying to accomplish by thinking in words, if we define
the task we create a strategic context for further thought.

Once established a train of thought can be more easily seen derailing.
The explicit nature of language means we can recognise better if we
break from our task or change tracks. Thus language can be useful for
determining and enforcing a direction in our thoughts.

Now, what is it not good for? We may be tempted to see language as a
blanket solution, so what are its limitations?

While it can pinpoint and clarify, the faculty of language is no
replacement for other kinds of thought. Language is more like mortar
than bricks. So we need to give proper attention to the faculties that
produce our ideas in the first place. There are many of them and none
can be replaced by language, only guided and assisted.

In practice, ideas are never really complete. No amount of working and
reworking can cover all details or all possible uses for a concept.
While putting something into words may help to clarify it, the clarity
is never perfect. You can increase your understanding of an idea, but
you can never finish it completely.

Neither is an idea correct simply because it's clear. Ideas will
change when challenged, and will fade when not in use. The tangibility
of language structures does not equate to permanence.

And lastly, the ability of language to direct your thoughts does not
mean that words should dominate your thoughts. Like a good director,
this faculty needs to sit back during a good take, and let the actors
play their parts. Like a lead instrument, it's sometimes minimal, and
sometimes silent.

Language is part of what makes us human, and we enjoy using it for its
own sake. If we use it strategically, and build the skills we need to
do this effectively, then we can enjoy both the activity, and its
fruit.

Language is one of the primary means by which our perceptions of
reality become understood. Language is then also the means by which
misunderstanding across cultures with different languages, or even
inside cultures where individuals have different local vocabularies or
sub-cultural words only understood by some.
This presents a primary problem for the realist who deems the world of
perception as unproblematic. Our languages structure the way we think
and limit the breadth of our perceptions. But these structures can be
found throughout the culture. According to structural theory in
anthropology meaning is produced and reproduced within a culture
through various practices, phenomena and activities which serve as
systems of signification. This prodives the praxial language of the
community without which it becomes almost impossible to function as if
it were just another unknown language but one invovling use of social
space, body language and gesture.
The sum of these practices and linguistic particularities condition
the members of their host society in unique and often (to an outsider)
unfathomable ways. Many of these practices are taken for granted and
effectively invisible to the participants such as forks go on the
right, savoury before sweet, meat and two veg, ladies first,
handshaking, bowing, washing and deficating inside the house, which
may seem bizzare to a member of another culture but are strange to
others.
Study of such practices makes fundemental the idiocy of any assumption
of an "objective reality" as these social praxial and linguistic
structures condition the interpretation of all we perceive.

On Jun 8, 9:59 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Language is part of what makes us human,

Man was human long before his language evolved.

and we enjoy using it for its
own sake.

Its not a toy, its a tool designed for a spcific purpose called
survival.

If we use it strategically, and build the skills we need to
do this effectively, then we can enjoy both the activity, and its
fruit.

From

www.importanceofphilosphy.com the web site the Kantians, especially
chazzzz, hate.

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature.

Each entity exists as
something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of
what it is.

"This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable."

"This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense,
smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are
referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type
of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their
identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the
aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific
characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it
would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to
exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot
have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be
a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is
particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have
more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part
of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same
time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be
red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and
the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue.
These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular
identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that
reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is
knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no
contradictions.

MG

On Jun 8, 9:59 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Language is part of what makes us human,

Man was human long before his language evolved.

and we enjoy using it for its
own sake.

Its not a toy, its a tool designed for a spcific purpose called
survival.

If we use it strategically, and build the skills we need to
do this effectively, then we can enjoy both the activity, and its
fruit.

From

www.importanceofphilosphy.comthe web site the Kantians, especially
chazzzz, hate.

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as
something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of
what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable."
"This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense,
smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are
referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type
of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their
identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the
aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific
characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it
would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to
exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot
have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be
a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is
particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have
more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part
of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same
time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be
red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and
the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue.
These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular
identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that
reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is
knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no
contradictions.

MG