>>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.<<
Language, in the animal kingdom, evolved primarily for the sake of COMMUNICATION. John Galt's thoughts can imagine many things without the conscription of words. My thought processes do not exclude images, mathematical abstractions, etc... Words are important to the
extent they tend to organize thought.
>>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.<<
That is precisely what your input is worth - 2 cents! Your argument does not follow logically. Which came first? Perhaps your egghead! The argument that one can only think in terms of words is often wielded by scurrillous attorneys, bible worshippers, and other such human scum as yourself. Off to your cave, BJ! |
