Login/Sign Up




Which came first: Thought or Language
Conspiracy

unlabled00
Jan 13, 2009
10 votes
13 debaters
3
1
1


+ Add Argument

9
Thought


brivapor
Jan 13, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
language is the verbalization of thought
so thought

 
jonjax71
Jan 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Thinker:

Your analysis is logical, however before you can articulate language you must be able to think or else you would just grunt and groan.

With all due respect(and you have much from me) I go with thought first.....

 
unlabled00
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The question came up on a recent episode of Corner Gas (Canadian sitcom) and I thought it was worth tossing in here :P

 
thethinker
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If you couldn't think at least to some level, can you really understand language?

 
xanthippa
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I have struggled with this one - all my life. More than most people can concieve of.

I do NOT think in 'language' or 'symbols' of any kind. I am not aware of any word (in any language) to describe 'how' or 'what form' I think in - except that it is not translatable into any of the 6 senses, thought, empathy, or any other 'concept' I know a word for (in any of the languages I speak in).

After I finish a thought - a chain of reasoning - and coming to a conclusion, it often takes me years before I can express this thought or conclusion in any language. Even then, it often takes me years of trying to communicate it to other people before I can do so effectively...even then, the accuracy suffers.

Most ideas and thoughts are simply not 'verbally/visually/audially expressible'!!!! Only the most mundane, imperfect ideas, thoughts and concepts are subject to verbalization - and even these are significantly reduced in their implications by the act of verbalization!

Very frustrating....

Perhaps being an Aspie, I am a 'freak' - yet, I am not alone. There are many people like I!!!

One day, we, humans, must find a better means of communication than language! (One that is effective, efficient and accurate, that is....we have never come even close - even employing mathematics!)

To more closely rebut the argument by '00': how could you possibly limit your thought to the symbols used in language?

Would this not be indicative of an inhumanly disciplined - and cripplingly limited - method of thought?


 
teachme
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

If you don't have thoughts to form a language...how does the language get formed?

You might say that language is a "physical" manifestation, a "vehicle," if you will, of ideas...that occur on the mental plane. Anything mental, emotional, and/or spiritual exists...before manifesting in the physical.

Verbal language can be heard and articulated, through vibration (sound), and 'felt' on the physical level. Written language is composed of symbols that are written (physically), and read visually (physical).

Thoughts (mental) and feelings (emotional/spiritual) had to have been conceived...before the birth of language. The creation of language was then used...to convey these thoughts and feelings.

 
frankiej4189
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Primative thought and instictual reactions came much sooner than the ability to articulate ourselves did.

 
skepticspeak
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

But not having the ability to verbalise your thought does not mean that thought does not exist.

 
hottubwille
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Emotion does not require language to be understood. It is basic and primal, something we all have. Therefore, thought first. Language second.

 
skepticspeak
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ddayvid Show

Speak for yourself, you incompetent freak.

 
juliocesar
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If language is the manifestation of human thought, then obviously thought was first.

 
thethinker
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Unencoded thoughts. I bet you once wanted to say something but you couldn't transform it into words. That's because the idea was there, but you couldn't encode it.

 
frankiej4189
Jan 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

That's an interesingly terrifying feelilng, realizing that you've been driving for 5 minutes and you can't remember how you got there or mroe importantly, paying attention while you were getting there. I'm no stranger to that feeling, its impressive but terrifying at the same time.

 
ennofi
Nov 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Мысль - это целый, единый и законченный смысл. Этакий информационный сгусток, целостный образ, несущий весь смысл сразу, без дополнений. А слово - это инструмент передачи мысли для информационного обмена. Первична Мысль - как целое, в дальнейшем разбитое на части - слова, безжалостно раздробленное рациональностью, пропущенное через фильтр логики, и в результате - нечто бесформенное с искажённым смыслом, но готовое к употреблению. Этакий фарш перемолотого смысла. Слово, как несовершенный инструмент передачи и обмена информации, портит и искажает суть. Но, Увы... Мы не имеем другого способа, поэтому Слово занимает доминирующее положение даже в отношении самой Мысли.

 
+ Add Argument

1
Language


shypanda
Jan 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I often times find myself many many miles down the road having no recollection of how I got there (stone sober) and still driving. There is no conscious thought attributed to driving, yet the act still persists. Just as with language, often times individuals speak before they think (hence the saying). This not only applies to insensitive statements, but potentially whole conversations where a party is unaware of their participation.

Is it not possible that language can be an involuntary reaction under some circumstances where there is no thought required?

Really most of my ideas here rely upon the assumption that 'thought' is being used interchangeably with 'intelligent thought.' Which now that I think about it, I am living proof that language comes before thought...

 
unlabled00
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

But if you don't have a language to think in how do you indentify what you are thinking of?

 
frankiej4189
Jan 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Damn it wont let me delete that post. I don't like what i just wrote. Homosapiens have always been at the very least semi-social creatures no? So even at our earliest time as a species, we still had some form of communication. This communication could be grunts and groans like Jon said, or it could just be gestures of some kind, or it could be combinations of both. Either way, our species had to have communicated with one another in order to survive so a basic language MUST have existed. Perhaps the best answer to this question is sitting on the fence (like i frequently do). It could be that language and thought are so much a part of eachother where one could not have possibly come before the other.

 
ddayvid
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
How culd u think bout sumpin b4 talkin bout it? ur all mung spewin vag farts

 
shypanda
Jan 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes! The answer to the question is unequivocally YES.

Thought or Language absolutely came first.

 
ennofi
Nov 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Мысль - это неозвученное слово, так что Библейский принцип верен - вначале было Слово...

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

2012 9/11 aliens bush Conspiracy Government JFK politics religion VanCam