Could philosophy exist without language?

you are describing philosophical problems, not philosophy.

But you're probably not interested in Wittgenstein so whatevs.

That would only be true under a very limited definition of thinking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

If by "language" you mean any system of signs and categories, then yes: I believe organized thought would be impossible.

I think signs/symbols are closer to what language is than categories

Categorisation is (not always but often) a subconscious process, and just like with mathematics, lots of animals that have nothing even close to formal language display behaviours that suggest categorisation is occurring

In the beginning was the word

Which word was it?

what's "it"?

The word

What about it?

>platonism

of course not. without errors to correct there would be no corrective. language is the one who introduces the errors.

Hey you!

here, listen to this guy:

Would you be so kind as to elaborate that to at least a couple of sentences?

>you can't punch the fucker to tell him he's wrong
that'd be some abstract idea of which science is a realisation

>that'd be some abstract idea of which science is a realisation
Yes, maths is a formal/conscious/linguistic (choose whichever one you like most) way of expressing and elaborating upon a subconscious process

Is philosophy the same? If so, is the subconscious philosophy philosophy, or is it something else?

>language is the one who introduces the errors.

The error which begins philosophy, is human ignorance

>>you can't punch the fucker to tell him he's wrong

he can't be wrong about meaning without language is the point.

elaborate platonism?

the idea that abstract things exist independently of the systems used to represent them

like saying math would exist even if there were no symbols we use to represent it with and call it math

I think he meant that people understood numbers and mathematics because they were born with an inherent understanding of it, and that modern system of writing down mathematics is only a way to 'recall' such knowledge.

>like saying math would exist even if there were no symbols we use to represent it with and call it math
Well, it's a question of semantics really

If you define maths as a system of formally defined numerical operations (or something like that), then obviously it can't exist without numbers because numbers are part of its definition

If you define mathematics as processes such as counting, adding, subtracting etc. it can exist without numbers or symbols

Can deafblind people think about abstract concepts? Or about anything at all?

That's exactly what it would mean. And Plato would agree with what you said there.

That's like saying things like multiplicity, curves, motion, shape, etc., and physical principles that make up the study of math, do not exist unless we have a discipline to understand them through.

Well, yes, they can user

lmgtfy.com/?q=can deaf/blind people think

A more relevant question might be if a person who lived in their entire life in total sensory deprivation could think, if this person would ever develop what we consider to be consciousness, and if this person would even be a person on anything more than basic physiological level

t. Aristotelian

>looking for answers in definitions

well, yeah

think about numbers 1 2 3 4 5 etc.

obviously the concept of there being 1 or 2 or whatever of something exists even without the numerals or words we use to describe it

wouldn't you say motion, curves etc. are not abstract things though?

nice read on this
>plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

of course motion's abstract. A moving thing aint motion.

then a living thing ain't life

>obviously the concept of there being 1 or 2 or whatever of something exists even without the numerals or words we use to describe it
So the concept can exist (within our minds) independently of the symbol used to describe it?

humanity is defined by that which creates, among other things, language. so, if you want, it is not much language who introduces the errors but the source of language, which also is the source of many other things.

we incur in error by not knowing how that source determines our vision. so in a way you are saying the same thing i did.

exactly. and an apple isn't the apple. universals be whack yo.

The 'error' was/is that knowledge (of truth/Truth) is lacking, thus the fall/rise of man

I thought you meant language introduces the errors in that wittgenstein sense of that there are no errors besides the shortcummings, confusions of the syntax of language

no, it isnt lacking. it is rather that it cant have a definitive foundation. that is the misery, that it can be but in its being it is not.

well in a way it is that, but language is only one case. the general pattern is illustrated in every single case, and language of course is the most liable to be used as an example due to its proximity to our conscious lives. by pointing the errors in language, this will point to the general structure of the mind and all its products, of which i repeat, language is only one.

I know wittgeinstein desired that perfect singular word per object/concept logic language to attempt to avoid errors contradictions,

Would that sort of be like pictographs/hieroglyphs? and ultimately is that what words are anyway, words are just middlemen to images/objects/concepts?

So pictograph is kind of pointless? But I wonder, the difference, if there was no language, but everything thought would be in pure images... how would one speak I guess. eventually the images would be named? anyway, just circling to the start of the crux.

How would ones internal monologue be, an endless series of emogis

Yeah. That would have to be the case. Or else mathematics is just our invention and has no validity outside of our minds. The first caveman to count to one used that word or grunt or symbol to signify that which existed independently of his mind. The only reason the symbol exists is to make it intelligible to other people, for the act of communicating ideas that exist within nature, or through nature, as Plato would suggest. Numbers and symbols are not things in of themselves.

Basically the whole thing boils down to do you think mathematics is...

1) Discovered

or

2) Invented

the real question is if philosophy could exist without people

and the answer is no

There was this numberphile episode where they showed you how this math savant kid interpreted numbers which had to do with shapes and creating these almost fractal patterns with them. I suppose it all matters on what you consider math/language to be?

Well it seems many of the other anons in the thread disagreed with you on that..

well many of the anons ITT are wrong

>If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Apparently, it depends both on your definition of a sound and on your level of agreement with Plato

Seeing as the highest point of philosophy is the contemplation of the Ineffable Silence, I would say yes :^)

Language as in Symbol. Even people who think mostly in images, regardless of the quality and quantity of said images, are still using Symbol as the basal unit of Though, as is everyone else.

Aquinas follows Aristotle in saying that our knowledge is acquired from the senses. However, Aquinas allows for the possibility of knowledge being infused by God.
Plato says that we have knowledge inborn that we can become aware of through reminiscence.

Guys I think that if you regard Consciousness as basal, Language (Symbol) as its immanent operating system, and our current Human senses as the windows in the vehicle on the tracks of refraction returning to the Form of Good, then this problem doesn't really exist.

The problem is that I (OP, if it matters) don't regard language/symbols as a necessary part of consciousness. They are an inevitable result of it however

I suppose you will have to define "Philosophy" before we progress the discussion

Do you mean can 'questioning' exist? Do you mean can 'thinking' exist? Can imagining exist? Can reason exist?

I suppose reason can exist, because my cat does not have a language, necessarily (I dont know what you would call meows), but I have witnessed him "reasoning" on whether or not he could make a particular 3ish foot jump from kitchen counter to counter, he would hesistate, and double guess himself, is that philosophy in action? Is he aware of danger and pain, and his strength, and how much force he must use to make the jump?

What about a beaver making a dam, a bird a nest?

>What about a beaver making a dam, a bird a nest?
Instinct?

>I suppose you will have to define "Philosophy" before we progress the discussion
Well honestly I was hoping this thread would provide some satisfying answers to things like that

I often find myself quite irritated when I get into discussions like this, not because of what other people say but just because language itself seems to rely so much on absolutes, binarities, definitions etc. that don't really reflect "reality" as I experience it

I said philosophy to get the discussion going, but you could basically make all the same arguments about anything

Human behaviour, including language, writing posts on Veeky Forums, and thinking about philosophy also ultimately derives from what you might call "instinct". Consciouness and rationalization are tools of the more primitive parts of the mind

>Human behaviour, including language, writing posts on Veeky Forums, and thinking about philosophy also ultimately derives from what you might call "instinct".
But language and philosophy are learned, while instincts are genetically pre-programmed and passed through generations.

Complex behaviours like a beaver building a dam are not "pre-programmed". Realistically it is impossible to hard code something so complex into DNA.

They have some genetic predisposition that makes them better suited to doing certain things than other animals (I suppose that in the beaver case, they need a brain that allows reasonably complex 3d visualisation and memory), and then they learn how to do it through both trial and error and observation of others

>Complex behaviours like a beaver building a dam are not "pre-programmed". Realistically it is impossible to hard code something so complex into DNA.
Wrong:
askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3879

juneauempire.com/stories/050408/out_275269543.shtml

sites.google.com/site/sf11beavers/project-proposal/bibliography/annotated-bibliography/untitledpost

Additionally:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050321083933.htm

arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/complex-behaviors-reveal-remarkably-simple-genetics/

Well, that's pretty cool, I didn't know that. Although I'm pretty sure you could condition a beaver to not build dams if you wanted to, so arguably it's not exactly instinct (semantics)

Anyway the point I was making is that things like language stem from the positive emotions you get from socially interacting with other people, and those positive emotions are related to your basic biological impulses. Basically we just learn to do shit like that to impress other people so we can have sex with them. Unfortunately we've become so complicated that we are often self-defeating in this respect

>Although I'm pretty sure you could condition a beaver to not build dams if you wanted to, so arguably it's not exactly instinct (semantics)
What does outside interference have to do with it being instinct or not? Are you sure you're not confusing unconditioned reflex with instinct?

It's a question of definition; if you look up instinct on wikipedia you'll see that the commonly understood meaning of it has changed considerably over time and is still not exactly agreed upon

>Instinct?

What is instinct?

I presume it means something like; thought without thinking? Knowledge without learning?

Do you just assume there is a film in a beavers head that shows the step by step of how to eat the bottom of a tree and drag it to build a fort in a river, it just watches the film that plays in its head for it (recorded long ago by... the master builder ancestor beaver... or god), and then follows the instructions, thats what you mean by instinct?

would be interesting to know if new born beaver babies removed from their family or pack, and put in an appropriate environment alone, build dams.

>while instincts are genetically pre-programmed and passed through generations.

So for example, a hetero males desire to sex a female. Do you think if a hetero male was born and seperated from society, and kept away from all knowledge of the world, but fed and stuff, around the age of puberty, would intuitively 'know' about females, and desire them? Or they would get horny? And if they then were to see a female, they would 'know' that they were meant to sex her?

Yes, philosophy, the love of wisdom, can exist without language. The highest category of the Aristotelian bios theoretikos is not logos, usually translated as speech or reason, but nous, usually translated as mind, but actually meaning something like contemplation. The philosopher sits in absolute quietude, in silent contemplation of the changeless and eternal kosmos which is perfectly self-subsistent. This beatific vision, this experience of the nunc stans (the standing now) would be ruined entirely by any bodily movement whatsoever, including the dialogue between the "I" and the "me" which constitutes thought. This is why Plato saw the body as a prison of the soul. Is it it not highly significant that Socrates declined to write anything down? He was not concerned with immortality, like an Homeric hero who has won the praise of men, nor is he concerned with making "endless distinctions" like a Sophist; no, he is only concerned the eternal forms of things , which only reveal themselves in the absolute quiet of contemplation. Derrida thought he was being clever and innovative when he criticised logocentrism, but Plato was first; listen, my friends:>If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.

>Yes, philosophy, the love of wisdom
What is wisdom?

I believe it could.
>Be caveman
>Try and fight saber tooth
>Get mauled
"Unga bunga, me no wanna chunga"
>Never fight another one ever again
>Philosophy of never fighting something stronger than you is invented
>Philosophy of the importance of the self is a part of this

So yeah

no bully kot

Yes
and yes.

Just lit up a fat blunt and opened this article. it's gonna be a wild fucking night boys lmfao

ignoring that in I, Wittgenstein he says "hey fuck that shit i said before oops"

No, but how does philosophy "exist" in any case?

That sentence is retarded and you're a fuckwit.

Isnt that what chomsky says about language?

i hope that cat murders you and your family