Blog 9 -- 3/5/14

Week 8 Blog 2 – Truman Combs

In a brief dialogue between Seth and Ben, those in attendance were exposed to the epitome of the debate over whether or not language is necessary for thought. I’m not one to straddle-the-fence, but I would argue both positions are circumstantially observable in nature. Seth introduces the discussion by suggesting that humans are capable of engaging in thought without the need to first consult the language associated with those particular ideas. Conversely, Ben argues that regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it (in fact, I would say that this step is fulfilled subconsciously by most), unspoken thought still relies on linguistics—without which, thoughts would not develop as they do.

The position I take on the matter is somewhat of a synthesis of the two aforementioned. As far as Seth’s logic goes, I believe that for people who do not possess a language (i.e. indigenous populations) are capable of this type of linguistic-less ideation, but not us, or any other population possessing language-based communication for that matter. I would argue that for populations dependent on these more developed forms of communication, language has become such a significant part of our lives that language and thought become somewhat inseparable. This is to say that, as Ben suggests, language always precedes thought—even if instantaneously and subconsciously—and, in considering just how developed one’s vocabulary is, may actually limit it. However, I also believe that Seth’s position serves to restrict the application of Ben’s point given the existence of populations that do not possess such a dependency. They do, however, exhibit the ability to form ideas and exchange thoughts, whereby refuting the absolutism of Ben’s position.