Is your language holding you back????

Jacque Derrida says we create a prison with our language. He calls this prison the "Western Metaphysic" or 'phono-logocentrism' "The problem is, he says, is that we in the West are trapped by the voice. Trapped by our alphabetic writing which follows the voice. The voice is linear, in his view: there is only one thing happening at a time, a sequence of phonemes. On a larger scale, the unidimensional march of the voice is replicated in our linear view of history, what Derrida calls 'the epic model.' The bars of the prison, then are made of speech and of oral poetry, and the way out, in Derrida's thinking is through a writing and a literature that finally realizes their full potential by severing their connections with the voice."

What do you guys/gals think?? :rasta:

I agree completly!

i have had similiar thoughts. Like because we think in language we think as we would speak, so essentially we would think slower, and think of words and not an idea or something as a whole. This is partly why i think when we are asleep and unconcouis we can think much faster because we arent thinking in language, or something like that, i made it sound much better while i was high and i wrote it down in my philosphy notebook for when i'm high but i left that in my car and i'm posting w/o it. But you all should get the jist of what i'm getting at.

alex, i would be willing to argue if we think in a language or not, much of the time i believe that we think with pictures, granted there are times when we talk to ourselves, but for the most part when you think about something, its either an object or a timeframe that is stored in your memory...anyways i just find this stuff really interesting

(Charles Manson)

Hogwash.
Look at cultures with simpler languages. Or look at people who use only sign language (a much less linear form of communication, with far fewer rules and constraints).
Do their ideas surpass those developed in English?... No.
Are they technologically and culturally superior to the 'spoken' world?... No.
This theory just doesn't work in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyGuyOU

Jacque Derrida says we create a prison with our language. He calls this prison the "Western Metaphysic" or 'phono-logocentrism' "The problem is, he says, is that we in the West are trapped by the voice. Trapped by our alphabetic writing which follows the voice. The voice is linear, in his view: there is only one thing happening at a time, a sequence of phonemes. On a larger scale, the unidimensional march of the voice is replicated in our linear view of history, what Derrida calls 'the epic model.' The bars of the prison, then are made of speech and of oral poetry, and the way out, in Derrida's thinking is through a writing and a literature that finally realizes their full potential by severing their connections with the voice."

What do you guys/gals think?? :rasta:

---

The voice can, and does, present a better characterization of thought than words alone. Even today, authors are occasionally invited to read from their works, even at large concert halls that are usually reserved for symphonies and operas.

It has been said that as great as his speeches and debating skills were, Lincoln had a high-pitched, bad voice - but apparently made good use of it . Had he not been assassinated, and lived till Edison's recording technology was invented in the late 1870's, we may have had records of his own voice.

I dont know if its the english language that slows down thought or productivity, but more just verbal language. The fact that we can not communicate at the speed of thought; slows down production of life, often times in communicating the initial idea, thought, or point of the subject is lost, to tangents or scatter brains. Their are groups in the world, where at times they operate at such silence and close proximity, they learn to communicate almost telephthicaly. They move or feel a thought rather than speaking it, and their partner or buddy knows exacticaly what the other is saying. An example is under water (scuba) with no or little visability. If done for so long that you are now with the same person day and night, not using verbal communication, and communicating through movment and feeling. The result could be a much more efficiant swim under water. Instead of saying or giving hand sign, to swim -right- both swimmers know what a slight change in direction feels like and are constantly anticipating any change. Wether it is with their swim, the environment, or their partners swim. This is just a simple example with lots of practice and training more complex menuvers or conversations can be managed and ,what happens is communication closer to the speed of thought. Of coars if you cant talk or mange words to some sort of language then no one will know what you are saying or meaning. Monkeys are communicating but to most people it just looks like monkeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteve

Hogwash.
Look at cultures with simpler languages. Or look at people who use only sign language (a much less linear form of communication, with far fewer rules and constraints).
Do their ideas surpass those developed in English?... No.
Are they technologically and culturally superior to the 'spoken' world?... No.
This theory just doesn't work in real life.

---

If you do look at sign language its as complex as any other language. Children who are born deaf, if placed together, will create their own form of sign language, developing syntaxt and grammer equally fast as children born with the ability to hear. Where do you get this idea of fewer rules? and why do you think speakers of english follow them? sure maybe in formal writing, but the vast majority of the time we use slang, jargon, and incomplete sentences.

Good point FlyGuy about the jargon and slang. I wonder what the roots of these things are. Maybe even an attempt to expedite our verbal expression since it is/was slower than our thought process?

On the flip side, I talk very fast at time and often people ask me to slow down. If we could process "faster" then shouldn't they be able to keep up? Or is their mind sort of programmed/stuck in a rut it dug over their living in a certain paced verbal experience?
If the latter, could one train themselves to understand speech at a faster rate? For example slowly increase a recording of speech as practice for understanding at higher rates. hmm.

The only prison language creates that I can see is the limits language places on communicating your mind to others.

I don't think in language, I think in feelings and shapes, mathematics and even three dimensions easily.

I cannot however communicate that fully with language, enough to allow another to truly know my thoughts.

So in a way we are each in our own little prison of sorts you could say. Some people more than others. Without language and other forms of communication we use we would be in solitary confinement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by netdog

The only prison language creates that I can see is the limits language places on communicating your mind to others.

I don't think in language, I think in feelings and shapes, mathematics and even three dimensions easily.

I cannot however communicate that fully with language, enough to allow another to truly know my thoughts.

So in a way we are each in our own little prison of sorts you could say. Some people more than others. Without language and other forms of communication we use we would be in solitary confinement.

---

It's always funny when i'm with some high freinds and once and awhile one isnt, and dont talk in full sentences because we all just understand without using many words. Then the sober guy is never understanding shit, like wtf are you talking about, then everyone else is like i understand.

Yea i agree to a certain point

Yeah but you hit a problem when you think of the alternative. What do you propose we do about it? It's all good 2 say we are being held back by language, but unless you can find a better alternative, it's kinda pointless

Derrida was a badass. Didn't he just die like a couple of years ago? Anyways, communication without verbal language. Telepathy, maybe? Other than that, I can't really think of a way. Here's an interesting question, though. Are stimuli necessary for thoughts to occur? In other words, do I need to experience something in order to think? If so, that's a pretty strong argument for determinism, isn't it? In order to have free will, it seems, we would need to have original thought.