Rusting Car Bumper

This depends on what is meant by "better biologically."

If I speak a language which doesn't allow me to attribute dangers in a particular environment and I find myself in that environment then it can be claimed that some other langauge is "better."

DC

phaedrus

My take is that he is stating that this particular level of meaning can not be reduced to words/theories until we get a "complete" understanding of our minds and the way they communicate/understand. With regard to how we know that it is there.....there are many qualitative aspects of our lives that can not to expressed in words or communicated effectively, but we know they are there.

You can look at the role various non-verbal signs play in the process of communication.

Maybe this old thread might interest you, though it didnt go anywhere ..Do words suffice?


Maybe will discuss in detail later...but doesnt the fact we currently do not have anyother tool in place or havent tried to create, make it "reliable" (and add a qualifier that given the current conditions).

Just curious....i did raise this issue in the old thread linked above....what sort of tools do you think that we can use? Any guesses on who we can know what is it to be the Nagel's bat?

jp


For those who are interested in comments on ponty....take a look at this pdf file....Essence and Language:The Rupture in Merleau-Ponty�s Philosophy

Luiseach

Okay, that sounds fair enough to me. I'm left wondering, though, about how we can achieve a 'complete' understanding of our own minds. I wish we could do this!

Darn...I hadn't thought of this, indeed I often forget to take non-verbal signs into accounts of communication (I tend to think of language mainly in terms of the verbal). So, good point, Phaedrus.

Thanks for the link...I'll enjoy reading it.

It's definitely true that language is the only tool we have available.

At the same time, however, I tend towards the view of language as a medium which is inherently predisposed to certain characteristics, one of which is the potential for 'unreliability'...that is, it isn't necessarily an unbiased medium for communication; it cannot relay or articulate all meanings (I'm thinking here of your point about non-verbal signs); it doesn't necessarily reflect, faithfully, a reality beyond itself, although it may attempt to do so. What say you? (BTW, after reading the linked thread you posted, I'll be able to refine my view on this idea a bit more.)

lol! That is a major obstacle, isn't it...we are trying to analyse a tool using the tool itself. I'll have to think about this, but I imagine that it would be impossible to develop a 'meta-language' with which to talk about language.

I suppose, however, that a heightened, self-conscious awareness of language is itself the means by which we can understand with any semblance of objectivity just how it works.

Of course, our consciousness is to some extent constructed by the language we hope to study, and we are thinking within the parameters of the language system. How do we develop criteria for judging language(s) as reliable/unreliable, good/better/best, etc.?

phaedrus

Lui

Okay, that sounds fair enough to me. I'm left wondering, though, about how we can achieve a 'complete' understanding of our own minds. I wish we could do this!

Hopefully one day we will able to do that and be able to "construct" a thought in the lab

On the affective part => When we talk aboutaffective meaning we are in fact talking about the attitudes reflected towards the hearer or the subject by the speaker (Leech, 1981, 15). Affective meaning usually goes beyond theutterance meaning, and the stress, intonation and the tone of voice are also important here.
For example, we could say:

(i) Oh, that�s just great.
(ii) Politicians are really smart.

If we say (i) while expressing great unenthusiasm, the affective meaning is just the opposite of the utterance meaning. Likewise, exactly the same thing happens with (ii), if we exaggerate the stress on really and smart (Finegan, 1994, 160). Affective meaning doesn�t have to depend on stress and intonation. Our choice of words is the most important factor, especially their connotations.

I tend towards the view of language as a medium which is inherently predisposed to certain characteristics, one of which is the potential for 'unreliability'...that is, it isn't necessarily an unbiased medium for communication; it cannot relay or articulate all meanings (I'm thinking here of your point about non-verbal signs); it doesn't necessarily reflect, faithfully, a reality beyond itself, although it may attempt to do so. What say you?

Yes, something which was touched upon in the old thread. But for all practical purposes currently the only reliable tool we have for communication is language. (Unless we bring in ESP, mind reading ...etc)

we are trying to analyse a tool using the tool itself. I'll have to think about this, but I imagine that it would be impossible to develop a 'meta-language' with which to talk about language.

Could be analogous to "the mind observing the mind".


I suppose, however, that a heightened, self-conscious awareness of language is itself the means by which we can understand with any semblance of objectivity just how it works.

So we land up at the basics - Do we require language to "think"?Koans or allegorical approach or myths or parables.....

Of course, our consciousness is to some extent constructed by the language we hope to study, and we are thinking within the parameters of the language system. How do we develop criteria for judging language(s) as reliable/unreliable, good/better/best, etc.?

Will we ever find an archimedian point. Or maybe we will just read "Waiting for Godot" and reminisce about language

jp