Del:
Perhaps there is no thought without language. Language is inherently descriptive, or experience-based. We saw wings, described them in language, strapped them on and jumped from the nearest cliff. Didn't work. Bernoulli (sp?) was finally able to piece it together by juxtaposing concepts that had been previously described and comprehended using language. From his theorem, we defined "lift" in conjunction with a new term: aerodynamics. We were then able to construct the proper wing.
If what we experience cannot be conceptualized or articulated because there is no existing language to describe it, did we really experience it? Did aerodynamic lift exist before we could describe it with language? Have we been able to completely identify, describe, comprehend, and exploit all aspects of aerodynamic lift? Probably not. We quite literally cannot imagine what we do not "know" for the lack of a comprehensible description. I venture to say we know or comprehend relatively little.
So, which came first? Thought, or language? If language came first, there may in fact be no such thing as an "original thought," only an original experience or comprehension. In any case, language is at once most liberating and limiting. Just my $.02.
Regards,
AJ |
