Is language simply a tool?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Is language simply a tool?
The Broca area is NOT the "primary" centre for language in the brain. That is just plain wrong. I am guessing it is possible you meant something more specific though. As it stands what you say is plainly wrong.
Yes, people refer to language as a "tool" as they refer to mathematics as a "tool" of natural science. Yet mathematics stands apart from natural science so it is a limited metaphor. Many linguists have presented many different ideas about the structure and development of language, what language means (within various contexts) too! Linguists in some areas say "language" for things others would not take to mean "language" in the everyday sense of the term. As an example some linguists study bees "language", and others study "body language", but others would take this as too far a stretch. What the linguists do is make the effort to discern what they mean in any given context.
Very generally linguistics take about language meaning the exchange of information.
In regards to "language" in the sense of these words here "language" today means a whole lot more than what it did 10,000 years ago in any given dialect. The invention of writing, making the "word" physical was a huge step. If a human from birth is exposed to a complex cultural world it will interact about it as best it can. A child brought up by wolves learns the dynamics and "culture" of the wolf-life and when introduced into human society they do not possess the cultural markers to reintegrate well enough to learn the full structure of language even at a relatively young age. Whilst a man completely deaf all his life with no "language"(in the common sense we use the term everyday), and being living among humans and interacting with them into his 30's, can learn complex sign language.
If you are just saying "language" (as in communication) is the cause of all our woes, then what? Better we crawl into a lonely corner rather than communicate?
That is a very lame attempt at "proposing" you are not being ambiguous. I can propose to you that the sky is purple or green. A statement doe snot need to be backed up by scientific verification, it simply needs to have enough structure and meaning to communicate something (it needs to make either syntactical or semantical sense - and I would say as part of this "emotional" sense.)
Here is a statement:
"The grey of clouds is found in blue thunderous might, under the mathematical body of decent."
That is a perfectly acceptable syntactical statement and only several steps away from what you've presented. Of course it is easier to see my statement above makes less sense than yours. That said you are not doing a whole lot more than presenting a sham of meaning hidden craftily behind a solid syntactical structure.
If you are asking if "language" is a "tool" then explain what you mean. Say something more than "Axes are the primary cause of axe murderers." Which may look like a truth at a glance, but upon closer inspection is merely misleading due to the nature of how the problem is being presented with an unerring bias against "axes".
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Is language simply a tool?
You may not agree with my views, but I would not agree it is plainly wrong.Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
The Broca area is NOT the "primary" centre for language in the brain. That is just plain wrong. I am guessing it is possible you meant something more specific though. As it stands what you say is plainly wrong.
The Broca Area plays a significant role in language production and comprehension;
I understand there are many other parts of the brain that contribute to the production and comprehension of language but there is no way we can discuss neuro-linguistic by omitting the Broca Area.Wiki wrote:For a long time, it was assumed that the role of Broca's area was more devoted to language production than language comprehension. However, there is evidence to demonstrate that Broca's area also plays a significant role in language comprehension.
Yes, people refer to language as a "tool" as they refer to mathematics as a "tool" of natural science. Yet mathematics stands apart from natural science so it is a limited metaphor. Many linguists have presented many different ideas about the structure and development of language, what language means (within various contexts) too! Linguists in some areas say "language" for things others would not take to mean "language" in the everyday sense of the term. As an example some linguists study bees "language", and others study "body language", but others would take this as too far a stretch. What the linguists do is make the effort to discern what they mean in any given context.
I understand there are many perspectives to the term language, e.g. to Wittgenstein, language is a 'game.' I hold the basic view that 'language is simply a tool. I mentioned earlier to enable effective survival in alignment with the collective, humans has developed language [human].
Again we are caught between 'substance' and 'forms.' There are many forms to language but its essence is basically a tool to communicate and facilitate more effective survival.Very generally linguistics take about language meaning the exchange of information.
In regards to "language" in the sense of these words here "language" today means a whole lot more than what it did 10,000 years ago in any given dialect. The invention of writing, making the "word" physical was a huge step. If a human from birth is exposed to a complex cultural world it will interact about it as best it can. A child brought up by wolves learns the dynamics and "culture" of the wolf-life and when introduced into human society they do not possess the cultural markers to reintegrate well enough to learn the full structure of language even at a relatively young age. Whilst a man completely deaf all his life with no "language"(in the common sense we use the term everyday), and being living among humans and interacting with them into his 30's, can learn complex sign language.
I did not raise this issue.If you are just saying "language" (as in communication) is the cause of all our woes, then what? Better we crawl into a lonely corner rather than communicate?
Note I qualified 'proposition' in the philosophical sense.That is a very lame attempt at "proposing" you are not being ambiguous. I can propose to you that the sky is purple or green. A statement doe snot need to be backed up by scientific verification, it simply needs to have enough structure and meaning to communicate something (it needs to make either syntactical or semantical sense - and I would say as part of this "emotional" sense.)
Here is a statement:
"The grey of clouds is found in blue thunderous might, under the mathematical body of decent."
That is a perfectly acceptable syntactical statement and only several steps away from what you've presented. Of course it is easier to see my statement above makes less sense than yours. That said you are not doing a whole lot more than presenting a sham of meaning hidden craftily behind a solid syntactical structure.
Wiki wrote:The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other "propositional attitudes" (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of declarative sentences. Propositions are the sharable objects of attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity. This stipulation rules out certain candidates for propositions, including thought- and utterance-tokens which are not sharable, and concrete events or facts, which cannot be false.
I am differentiating the 'essence' of language and its 'forms'.If you are asking if "language" is a "tool" then explain what you mean. Say something more than "Axes are the primary cause of axe murderers." Which may look like a truth at a glance, but upon closer inspection is merely misleading due to the nature of how the problem is being presented with an unerring bias against "axes".
Language is essential a tool to facilitate survival at increasing complex levels. I am not interested [in this case] in its forms which is wide ranging.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Is language simply a tool?
Look up how "proposition" can be used in philosophy. It can be used to state a "belief" or "opinion" in some cases.
Truth is it is unclear what issue you are raising? That is my general problem here.
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: Is language simply a tool?
Actually, I am just saying what I said, that the main reason people lie [in a social context] is in the appropriation of labor-value [or, its money-form, if you so choose]. Again, why would people lie otherwise? What would be the point?Burning ghost wrote:I am guessing you're doing the same thing you did in your previous posts here? That is introducing the meaning of the term "labour-value" and applying ubiquitously across all themes of human endeavour and understanding.Synthesis wrote:I am going to reply to the group by suggesting that the main purpose of all social interaction is the expropriation of labor-value earned, and language is used mostly as a lever to achieve this end.
Why lie otherwise?
So what is likely to happen is you'll slowly feed in a couple of examples and cover up that all you are saying is nothing much at all. ie. that if you class "labour-value" as being the exchange of words, information, love, empathy, or money and goods, then you're vacuously correct in saying so.
If "language" means everything and is applied to everything, and "labour-value" means everything and is applicable to everything, then so what?
You've presented a very intricate window into the world of political rhetoric. Well done, whether you've done so intentionally or not.
note: Please don't extend the analogy by introducing another redundant and ambiguous term to represent the "fulcrum" of the "lever".
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is language simply a tool?
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: Is language simply a tool?
Math is very much a language like any other, suffering from the same exact malformations that limit all attempts to transform Reality into a more convenient platform. Excepting math would be like accepting Klingon [from Star Trek fame] as a legit language.Supine wrote:Math is a language--a quantitative language--and I think language expresses ideas and values. Which is different than using some object to carry out work, like keys on a keyboard to type letters with, or some object used to pry open the cap on a bottle.
Math was made up to make sense out of a world ordered in a particular way to the human intellect. Sure it works for some things [but what does not?]. As the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day."
And, Supine, you are correct that language expresses ideas and values, but can not validate either.
All human ideas are simply 'made-up,' the lasting ones by those with the greatest grasp of the system. Time [and change] will eventually erode the basis of every thought and replace it with the newer, improved one. And on and on it goes...
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Is language simply a tool?
I suggest you go back and look over the Gricean Maxims. I still see no real explication of what the OP is saying/asking. There is some hint at propaganda and hints that language is imperfect.
You are usually reasonably good at making your position and question concise. I think you've fallen short in this thread. PLEASE clarify and refine the OP. Be clear, be brief, avoid ambiguity and be orderly as the forth maxim asks us to be (Given that this is a philosophy forum take the "be brief" maxim with a pinch of salt!)
I am guessing that you're asking something along the lines of "People lie, generally speaking, in order to pass the burden of labour onto someone else to suit their own purposes or simply out of laziness and/or physical/intellectual stupor."
I would argue that people "lie" to themselves too. We don't know anything much and language only adumbrates the subjective "feeling" of being human. It is not the lies that get us to create "productive labour", if anything it is the adherence to certain social agreements, and the conventions of language, that allows labour to be combined for projects that a mere individual could never partake in alone (this would go for intellectual and physical labour, although I have no idea how to quantify between the two and that this dilemma is perhaps one of the more cumbersome problems in the modern economic world.)
note: I am simply attempting a reasonable guess at what you are grasping for in this thread. Guide me toward the topic if I happen to be veering off on some tangent you find of little use in your chosen area of investigation. I feel perhaps you've taken the analogy of "tool" and applied it as an "industrial tool" meant only to be put to use for economic purposes ... then we can agree if, and only if, you mean "economic" in the broadest sense of the term. Ironically if we're to communicate with more success we are required to speak within more narrow definitions or else face the constant problem of talking over each other about parallel matters.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023