Stop Saying You Are Independent

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

You are sitting alone in your house. You are self-employed. You are not in a romantic relationship and have severed ties with friends and family. Does this make you independent?

No.

Since we all use language, we are automatically involved in a chain of connection. Language implies the existence of other people to communicate with. To learn a language is to become involved in a relationship.

We do not create the languages we speak, we are born into an ongoing conversation. We do not name ourselves, we are named by other people. As we grow up, we are forced to identify with the identities we were assigned.

We are only able to navigate the world by using the words of others. We do not categorize our environments, other people label them for us. As we grow up, we are forced to accept and internalize these terms. Our ‘private’ desires can only be recognized and formatted through a language shared with others. For this reason, Jacques Lacan argues: “the unconscious is the discourse of the other.”

There is a difference between communication and language. Communication refers to sounds, looks, and movements utilized by all species to send a message. Language refers to an alphabet, words, rules of grammar, and a system of numbers used to send a message. Humans are the only species that use language. However, language is not simply an instrument. Language is the ultimate expression of humanity. We require recognition from others to gain coherence at all – and language makes that possible. Humans are language and language is human.

Humans use language because, unlike other animals, we have self-consciousness. This self-consciousness separates us from others (i.e. ‘I’ am not ‘you’) and the external world (i.e. ‘I’ am not ‘that’). Language is an attempt to fill these gaps. Thus, language is always deployed in the service of unity.

We can only exist in relation to others. There is no ‘I’ without ‘you’ and there is no ‘us’ without ‘them’. At birth, our body is literally connected to another person. However, the Western world fails to appreciate this. The father of modern philosophy – Rene Descartes – declared “I think, therefore I am.” This line of thought suppresses our social being in favor of individualism. Instead of “I think, therefore I am” – we should move toward the Ubuntu mantra of “I am because of who we all are.”

The word ‘independent’ depends upon the word ‘dependent’ to gain meaning.
The word ‘dependent’ depends upon the word ‘independent’ to gain meaning.

This is because language is dependency. Language prohibits independence. What we call ‘independence’ is simply a degree of dependency.

We need to stop saying we are independent.

[Sy Borg]

Good point.

I had a moment of realisation while on a tropical island holiday a few years ago. While standing on the beach I was disappointed to see the resort buildings and thought of how much nicer the island would have been without unsightly and destructive human stuff. Then I realised that everything I thought of as beautiful and unspoiled would wither kill me or not help me survive - the Sun, the sky, the sea, the sand, the threes, the wildlife. If I was on that island without human support I'd maybe have lasted a few tortuous days. I realised that we owe our ancestors and fellow humans everything.

Independence means being a genuine hermit and not relying on any human manufactured goods or communications (as you noted). Hardly common. We humans today are about as independent as the average ant or bee.

[Burning ghost]

I have a problem here ... I will first have to start saying I am independent before I can stop saying I am?

Some people prefer to be around other people more than others, some people require more stability than others. The social outliers are the social outliers.

Independence means you're less reliant upon the skills and knowledge of others to achieve what you wish to achieve. It is not the same as isolation though, which is how you seem to be defining it for some reason? If anything being too independent shows a lack of trust toward others. The gains from interdependence are great, but some degree of independence makes you a more worthwhile individual for the group dynamic. Being too dependent merely creates a fop of human being, who lies around complaining about how everything is so difficult and snivels around at peoples feet asking for constant assistance without being able to bring anything to the table other than relief to those who look upon them thankful they are not quite as pathetic as this useless, fearful idiot groveling before their feet. On the flip side it can always be taken as a great opportunity to teach them something useful and by doing so learn more yourself.

I admire independence more than dependence. Either as an extreme is destructive.

[Sy Borg]

The OP is clearly referring the ego bloating that can occur when one forgets that being independent is relative rather than absolute.

[Burning ghost]

The OP is clearly referring the ego bloating that can occur when one forgets that being independent is relative rather than absolute.

I think it is sounds like a purposeful political point and an attempt to redefine a word to suit the needs and belief of the person making the post.

I understand the political position being voiced. I don't like it and I find it naïve and essentially something quite dangerous. An independently minded person could see this too I feel? No doubt you can just as quickly accuse me of being egotistical and thus the unwinding of sensible discourse would begin.

The OP is laden with hints of the political affiliations of the poster. It is something I choose to oppose and I may be doing so for the wrong reasons and making assumptions that won't hold up.

I guess we'll see? I think you realise by now I am more inclined to prod someone with a stick than pat them on the back

I can certainly agree with the OP in regards to "independent women" who act like they don't need a man in their lives or any meaningful intimate relationship. Placing yourself in an isolated position lets you see yourself. This can be very beneficial and can give the individual strength, but it would depend upon the kind of personality the person has and their current situation. Generally when people are thrown into a situation and feel alone they are required to act with independence and can gain an awful lot of from such a situation. It is a test of self and not necessarily something we should intentionally shirk.

To quote Bjork:

"How could I be so immature ?
To think he could replace,
The missing elements in me,
How extremely lazy of me"

I think this is something we're all guilty of at one point or another in our lives. The quick fix mentality has increased a lot lately due to the faster pace society drives us along at with communication mediums like "twitter" or "SMS". That said there are equally encouraging aspects of more immediate communications even if they are somewhat simplistic compared to longer and more precise discussion.

Anyway, blah, blah! Interesting OP. Hope to hear more and be proven wrong.

[Sy Borg]

The OP is clearly referring the ego bloating that can occur when one forgets that being independent is relative rather than absolute.

I understand the political position being voiced. I don't like it and I find it naïve and essentially something quite dangerous. An independently minded person could see this too I feel? No doubt you can just as quickly accuse me of being egotistical and thus the unwinding of sensible discourse would begin.

There's a bit of Trumpian "clean out the swamp" seemingly going on. Yes, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a bad idea, no matter how tempting it may seem. Anarchy is always worse. Ask Somalians.

Still, aside from that, the OP seemed pretty focused on the "there's no I in team" aspect - that, whether we like it or not, we are ultimately part of a larger group.

We can only exist in relation to others. There is no ‘I’ without ‘you’ and there is no ‘us’ without ‘them’. At birth, our body is literally connected to another person. However, the Western world fails to appreciate this. The father of modern philosophy – Rene Descartes – declared “I think, therefore I am.” This line of thought suppresses our social being in favor of individualism. Instead of “I think, therefore I am” – we should move toward the Ubuntu mantra of “I am because of who we all are.”

I guess we'll see? I think you realise by now I am more inclined to prod someone with a stick than pat them on the back

Yes, even I have noticed that

[Georgeanna]

From the OP:

The word ‘independent’ depends upon the word ‘dependent’ to gain meaning.
The word ‘dependent’ depends upon the word ‘independent’ to gain meaning.

If 'independent' and 'dependent' are 2 sides of the same coin, then 'interdependence' is the coin.

I don't know anyone who claims to be totally independent. However, I do know plenty who strive to be as independent as possible, seeing it as a strong virtue.

Some - perhaps more in older generation ? - feel they exhibit physical and moral weakness to ask for help and will not ask for any favours. Yet, they are often the very same people who go out of their way to help others.

To be as independent as possible means having the strength to acknowledge degrees of dependence and inter-dependence.

[Burning ghost]

Zoneofnonbeing -

Just to tidy up the OP's definitions:

Communication means the exchange of information in some way (maybe just one-way).
Language is the medium through which information is understood. If I sent you a letter a Spanish and you were Chinese with no comprehension of romance languages it would be pretty damn useless.

Humans are not the only species that use "language", but this would be to nitpick over the use of the term "language" within the field of linguistics, where "language" has a broader application. For the purposes of this thread we can say that bees communicate to each other, but don't possess a "language".

"Language is the ultimate expression of humanity"?

Rather a bold claim given the limitations you've put on the term "language".

"Humans are language and language is human."

Again, this would have to be in line with your first definition of language. To which I can only say that this statement is completely false. We have facial expression and such to communicate and you've already laid the claim that humans are the only species with language so you must be dismissing such things as mere "communication" rather than as part of a "language". Therefore my facial expression and kinesthetic narrative in my life is utterly meaningless and none human.

"Humans use language because, unlike other animals, we have self-consciousness."

Debatable. We already know that dolphins and chimps recognize themselves in a mirror. This would depend on what you really mean by "self-consciousness"?

"At birth, our body is literally connected to another person. However, the Western world fails to appreciate this."

If so why do they cut the cord?

"The father of modern philosophy – Rene Descartes – declared “I think, therefore I am.” This line of thought suppresses our social being in favor of individualism. Instead of “I think, therefore I am” – we should move toward the Ubuntu mantra of “I am because of who we all are.”"

Which would lead us to study those that came before us with respect rather than condensing the enormity of their work down to less than half a dozen words to make some dubious political point.

This is probably my favourite of the barbarous uses of language you present:

"The word ‘independent’ depends upon the word ‘dependent’ to gain meaning.
The word ‘dependent’ depends upon the word ‘independent’ to gain meaning.

This is because language is dependency. Language prohibits independence. What we call ‘independence’ is simply a degree of dependency.

We need to stop saying we are independent."

It actually derives from "depend" (meaning "to hang from"). "Independent" (meaning "act according to one's own will"), rather than "hang from the will of others" I guess?

If their is no independent thought then everyone does everything without questioning it and without being held responsible for their actions. Again, I see independence to be a very good thing even though it is a difficult road to tread.

Language "prohibits" independence? How do you figure that? Do other mediums such as "dance" and "music" also inhibit independence? Should I shuffle along to your alter of "Language" and prostrate myself before it? Should I push back all those none verbal verbal thoughts and imagines like demons and chant the alphabet to disperse them?

We "need to" ? Stop reading incoherant political pieces that contradict each other and paint the human picture as one seemingly utterly inhuman and lifeless.

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Humans are not the only species that use "language", but this would be to nitpick over the use of the term "language" within the field of linguistics, where "language" has a broader application. For the purposes of this thread we can say that bees communicate to each other, but don't possess a "language"

...you disagree with me only to land on the same conclusion I outlined in the original post. Nonetheless, you are incorrect. Only humans use language. Study the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure or Jacques Lacan. All beings communicate, but language is a form of communication that only humans use. Do a basic Google search on this: language refers to spoken and/or written symbols.

On the whole, your commentary is quite odd and unworthy of further engagement (talking about dancing?) - embodying a bad faith attempt to actually ENGAGE with the material.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 9:03 am to add the following --

Burning Ghost - you seriously need to question your reading practices - as you seem to enjoy disagreeing with posts instead of extracting pearls of wisdom from them and engaging them on their own grounds for what they ARE saying.

[Burning ghost]

Sorry, your claim is simply false. If we agree or not it makes no difference is the path to our conclusions are completely at odds with each other. I don't think your conclusion of something along the lines of, 'Cold is just a degree of being hot', can be called a "pearl of wisdom". The use of writing has many traps involving various different antonyms. You seem to be compounding different antonyms. What we mean by "independence" may well be in a context where we're presenting it gradable as a gradable antonym, but it may just as easily be put across in a different context as a complimentary antonym. For example my heart beats independent of my conscious attention, whilst I am dependent upon my environment to sustain my life, and some items within the environment may depend upon my existence too. I can certainly agree that if I was isolated from humans as an infant I would not be quite so readily adapted to human society (feral children.)

As for your definition of "language" it is the more commonly accepted one, but it is most certainly not the only one used within linguistics today (this is not a matter of personal opinion but it is an area of contention within the linguistic fields.)

Here is the story of someone who had a job, lived among humans, but according to you he was not human until he learnt what language was. What was he before if not human?

If you've not heard of this case before prepared to be quite shocked (I know I was when I first heard about it!)

neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-w ... -language/

That is a pearl of wisdom. Consider how he had no language and was 27 years old, yet when you find a feral child they struggle to build a full language. The obvious difference here is in the community they had lived in their whole lives. The deaf man understood the wordl he lived in and so could learn its language, whilst the feral children could not because their world was a world that was not human.

Humans being with humans makes us human, not some "symbolic" form of language.

There are also many areas of the brain relating to language that are present in many other different animal species. We are different because we have them all working together.

In animals pattern recognition is bird song has been equated to grammatical differentiation too. Bee understand the semantics of dances (they don't blindly follow directions to places where they know there are no flowers.) If I remember correctly Bonobo chimps have roughly the same language capacity of a four year old human? (take that with a pinch of salt, but its in the ballpark area of being correct.)

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Burning Ghost -

I am, admittedly, thinking of altering this thesis, but for a different reason. The reason is because there are many groups of people on this planet that do not use "language" in the sense that they have an alphabet, numeric system, etc. They communicate orally - and nothing is written down. If I proceed with my definition of language, it will exclude large numbers of people - and end up being skewed in favor of Western civilizations which place an emphasis on rationalization, logic, etc.

I will concede to the point that "Humans being with humans makes us human, not some "symbolic" language".

[Burning ghost]

I offer my apologies for coming across like a complete Richard! Just in a provocative mood and for some reason and thought it would be a damn fine idea to grate at you given I saw imprecision in your writing that I;ve fallen foul to myself repeatedly. To be fair I still do because I use forums to write with minimal editing in order to improve by ability. If its more of an important point I want to get across I do spend a little more time over what I write (and occasionally even edit it in those cricumstances!)

[Atreyu]

Obviously no one can be absolutely independent.

I think when most people say they're "independent" they mean they don't live off the labor of others, don't "mooch", and don't need others to be happy. They may not be able to survive, nor could they even have been born, if nobody else existed, but they are "independent" compared to someone who cannot provide for themselves, or someone who starts getting nervous or depressed when they're alone for more than 5 minutes...

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Obviously no one can be absolutely independent.

I think when most people say they're "independent" they mean they don't live off the labor of others, don't "mooch" ...

Well, yes, but this is the absurdity that capitalism drills into us. We are taught to believe that those who "don't live off the labor of others" - bosses, entrepreneurs, those who are self-employed, etc - are independent. But upon further inspection, even these people at the top of the economic ladder are dependent on others. If all of the workers at a company quit, die, or go on strike - the boss is forced to reckon with the prospect of going out of business. Even the self-employed individual, who claims to have "lifted themselves up by their bootstraps" is ultimately dependent on others to survive. If the self-employed person works everyday producing aluminum baseball caps, and there is no demand on the market for the supply, the self-employed person is forced to reckon with the prospect of starvation. This is the point of Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic: the master denies it, but they ultimately depend on the slave.

And from the perspective of Marx: the working class does all of the work, while the boss does nothing except siphon off the surplus value from their labor to pay "create jobs" exploiting more workers. Bosses claim to be "independent", but they "live off the labor of others" - as "moochers" and vampires who suck the blood of workers.

-- Updated November 13th, 2017, 10:14 pm to add the following --

Edit for typo: "...value from their labor to 'create jobs' exploiting more workers.

[Burning ghost]

Zoneof -

This is the anti-capitalist agenda I saw in the OP.

Thers is certainly value in discussing this, but I am always of people who cloak their agenda. If you wish to discuss the effects and faults of capitalism be open about or you'll arouse suspicions in people who read past your words to the heart of your gripes (people loike me.)

I think it was Plato, or Aristotle?, who talked about the "good master" and "good slave" dynamic. I think given the modern context of slavery it's harder to see the meaning. The "master" is successful if they treat their "slaves" well, and the "slaves" recognize a good "master". If you replace this with "manager" and "worker" we can make a point regarding the disassociation between the top tier of a company and the bottom tier. Most businesses fail because they are too stratified. In this respect capitialism can take on some Marxist ideals in order to improve productivity and help the whole work force.

There are two ways to look at this situation. One is to ignore any structural method and the other is to refine the method to satify as many people as possible for the "greater good".