why does language and symbology transform human thought?

(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Sat 6 Dec 2008, 14:05, 12 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I'm not doing your homework for you again.
Now sit down and concentrate, or there'll be no dessert for you!
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 14:55, Reply)

There's no accepted answer to this question.
Also the question "does language and symbology transform human thought?" hasn't even been convincingly answered. I'd say it's more the other way round, but that's just my personal view.
( Zuowan, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 18:45, Reply)

Because
If they didn't there would be no gnarng, only hummf and preckels
(Halfy By light alone, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 18:58, Reply)

thank you all for your useless answers :D

(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Sat 6 Dec 2008, 19:09, Reply)

You made my head hurt for a little bit.
.
( girlinthehole, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 19:10, Reply)

That was the real answer, fuckpig.
If you don't appreciate it then you can fuck off.
( Zuowan, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 19:12, Reply)

Don't really understand the question...
Surely language and symbology are the basis of human thought. Discussion or argument of a topic can change the views of all people involved. Without this ability to think literally and laterally, taking previous logic - written or spoken and remembered - into account, we wouldn't be able to produce new theories, carry knowledge between people and generally further ourselves as a race: we'd still be (bald ;-) )monkeys.

Yes, I know how glib that sounds...I really couldn't spin this out to an essay, lol

Good luck dude :-)
(MrOli is ugly, but in the morning you will be sober, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 19:18, Reply)

MrOli,
what you're proposing is something called Linguistic Determinism, which was popular in the 60s, but which is losing favour now as it turns out we can think without language, as strange as that might seem. We tend to construct our train of thought around a linguistic framework, but most of what we actually think is on a subconscious level. Personally I would say that language is shaped by thought much more than the other way round.
Edit: Also monkeys DO think. They just don't have language.
( Zuowan, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 19:51, Reply)

just to clarify my idiocy
is the whole theory anything to do with this?

"In Persian Myth, it is said that Akbar the Great once built a palace which he filled with new-born children, attended only by mutes, in order to learn whether language is innate or acquired. This palace became known as the Gang Mahal, or Dumb House."
(Halfy By light alone, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 20:57, Reply)

It would be an interesting experiment.
Might have a bit of trouble with the ethics committee.
( Zuowan, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 21:05, Reply)

read
The Dumb House by John Burnside, its a book about someone who tries it out
(Halfy By light alone, Sat 6 Dec 2008, 21:13, Reply)

thank you all :)
esp. to James Bolam,who shouldn't be so serious.
(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Sat 6 Dec 2008, 23:22, Reply)