Before we try and answer the question: whats a thought, its worthwhile, I think, asking another question: Why would anyone think? When I say think, I mean think in that kind of way? Why do human beings, or why do some human beings, think? Why would anyone want to think? What wishes would thinking answer to? Most of the available answers to this question seem to me to miss the point or to be in a terribly simple way, not only very persuasive to people, but terribly obviously wrong. If you look at the question of thought from a biological point of view, what we are calling thought is normally formulated in something like the following way: that the capacity to think gives human beings an enormous adaptational advantage over another species. Normally, for example, this point is put in terms of language - that is to say, that thought is an aspect of language, and the development of language, amongst human beings, where we take language to be the collective existence of thought, and the possibility of the thought circulating. Language is thought to confer an enormous adaptational advantage. In trying to account for the origin and function and advantages of language, they, however intelligent they feel about genes, or god know what, its as if, in thinking about thought, they lose their capacity to do it: so they say something like this: well imagine, for example, a tribe of people suddenly develop language and sign systems so that they can have thoughts about how to do things, and not only about how to do them, but how to communicate them to someone else, suddenly there is a quantum in the adaptive capacities of that group because language enables people to communicate so language come thought are thought to be instruments of communication. And in a sense the means where by people can exist collectively. These books are written just like that: Language enables you to communicate, communicate thought, thought creates knowledge. There seems to me an enormous kind of problem with this argument and this argument is enormously wrong. First of all, I dont think that language enables people to communicate in the way in which people think that communication takes place. Frequently we see a diagram about what thought is and about what the relationship between thought and language and communication is: the diagram involves two heads, two empty heads, which have a thing in the head, like an idea or something, and sort of arrows will go showing how thought is put into language and out of the mouth comes an arrow and the arrow goes straight into someones ear and when its got to the ear it ends up in the brain and the second person now has exactly the same idea as the first person. This diagram, in different ways, has been appearing for two hundred years: its completely wrong, its completely daft, its so evidently wrong, and yet it goes on actually being celebrated as the fundamental account of communication, and therefore the purpose of language, and the purpose of language is to communicate whats thought. Language really doesnt communicate anything to anybody. If the function of language was to communicate something, theres something fundamentally wrong with language. Our experience of language I think is somewhat different from that. One of the things we know about language is that, although it may give us the wish to communicate something, we know that we never do, no sooner have I finished speaking to you, then I know I havent communicated. In a sense you could say that language is rather the consequence of misunderstanding. The function of language is always to try and undo misunderstanding by proliferating it. Otherwise, if you think about it, once you have communicated something thered be no problem, that would be it, you wouldnt be left with any residue. Think what it is you most urgently wish to communicate to someone. Is it very useful? Do they need to know this? Are the thoughts that you most urgently express do these confer upon the human species an enormous adaptational advantage? A theoretical point here is that communication and practicality have very, very little to do with the nature of language and the nature of what we do to each other through their use. Mark Cousins, Metaphor, Language, Thinking, Architectural Association: 1996.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:52:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015