Language, culture, and thought

[Unkotare]

To what extent do you think that language not only describes the world around us, but determines how we perceive it? An interesting question, if not a new one.

Language and Culture:* Language and Thought Processes

 

[Unkotare]

I guess it's not an interesting question to anyone else.......................

 

[Daktoria]

It's a difficult question. Some people believe it's common sense and not worth answering. Others don't get it.

You might want to look at this stuff if you're interested:

Harold Innis's communications theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)
High- and low-context cultures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...but yea, the grammar people use often depicts how they see things. For example, consider how people say, "is" or "ought", "fact" or "value", "want" or "need", "can" or "must". A lot of little words have interchangeable practical meaning, but idealistically speaking, they're very revealing of people's character.

 

[Sunni Man]

The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its respective speakers conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view, or otherwise influences their cognitive processes. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined as having two versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour.

Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

...but yea, the grammar people use often depicts how they see things. For example, consider how people say, "is" or "ought", "fact" or "value", "want" or "need", "can" or "must". A lot of little words have interchangeable practical meaning, but idealistically speaking, they're very revealing of people's character.

Politicians rely on just this sort of thing, and the weak-minded or inattentive are often affected by it to the point of malleability.

 

[Unkotare]

The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its respective speakers conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view, or otherwise influences their cognitive processes. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined as having two versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour.

Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A notion greatly complicated by the realities of multilingualism.

 

[Daktoria]

...but yea, the grammar people use often depicts how they see things. For example, consider how people say, "is" or "ought", "fact" or "value", "want" or "need", "can" or "must". A lot of little words have interchangeable practical meaning, but idealistically speaking, they're very revealing of people's character.

Politicians rely on just this sort of thing, and the weak-minded or inattentive are often affected by it to the point of malleability.

Well I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that.

People have lives to live. It's not necessarily that they're weak, but that they're exhausted...

...but yes, many are one-track minded. They hear words, and that's that. They don't understand how ideas and words can match in many ways.

 

[Unkotare]

...but yea, the grammar people use often depicts how they see things. For example, consider how people say, "is" or "ought", "fact" or "value", "want" or "need", "can" or "must". A lot of little words have interchangeable practical meaning, but idealistically speaking, they're very revealing of people's character.

Politicians rely on just this sort of thing, and the weak-minded or inattentive are often affected by it to the point of malleability.

Well I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that.

People have lives to live. It's not necessarily that they're weak, but that they're exhausted...

...but yes, many are one-track minded. They hear words, and that's that. They don't understand how ideas and words can match in many ways.

Citizens have a duty to be vigilant. "Exhausted" is an excuse for being weak and/or lazy.

 

[Daktoria]

No. Exhausted can mean they're exercising their rights instead of defending them.

There's actually a classic debate on this in law. It's called substantive versus procedural justice.

 

[Michelle420]

To what extent do you think that language not only describes the world around us, but determines how we perceive it? An interesting question, if not a new one.

Language and Culture:* Language and Thought Processes

From your link:

Anthropologists have found that learning about how people categorize things in their environment provides important insights into the interests, concerns, and values of their culture. Field workers involved in this type of research refer to it as ethnoscience

In that kind of example it would matter to understand language and how it is perceived between cultures.

In a Global Economy I would think it would matter a lot.

 

[Daktoria]

I guess I'll clarify for you, Unkotare.

People have limited attention spans. If someone's weak, then one's attention span isn't sufficient to do what needs doing. In government, this means they can't pay enough attention through eternal vigilance to ensure responsible government.

However, responsible government needs doing in order to govern over our lives which take attention as well. If our lives take so much attention that eternal vigilance becomes a hassle, then it can't be done.

Now there are two arguments about this. I could argue that this is because the demand for attention is excessive, and that it defeats the purpose of life since eternal vigilance would take so much attention that it would prevent life from being lived. People aren't lazy because they need to live their lives as well.

On the other hand, you could argue that this is because the supply of attention is excessively lived, and that eternal vigilance is prevented since too much attention is taken away from it. People are lazy because they're living too much, defeating the purpose of responsible government.

One way or another, if the process of eternal vigilance exceeds the substance of living life, then people won't pay attention to responsible government.

I guess it's up for debate if you want to say their attention spans are lazy, weak, neither, or both.

 

[Unkotare]

People have limited attention spans. If someone's weak, then one's attention span isn't sufficient to do what needs doing. In government, this means they can't pay enough attention through eternal vigilance to ensure responsible government..

Demagogues and despots rely on rationalizations like yours.

 

[Daktoria]

I agree. Politicians often take weakness as an excuse to relieve people of responsibility so they can supposedly take care of it for them.

However, there are concepts such as "burden of proof" and "duty of care" that exist to prevent people's attention spans from being overwhelmed. People are not omnipotent gods.

 

[Unkotare]

To what extent do you think that language not only describes the world around us, but determines how we perceive it? An interesting question, if not a new one.

Language and Culture:* Language and Thought Processes

From your link:

Anthropologists have found that learning about how people categorize things in their environment provides important insights into the interests, concerns, and values of their culture. Field workers involved in this type of research refer to it as ethnoscience

In that kind of example it would matter to understand language and how it is perceived between cultures.

In a Global Economy I would think it would matter a lot.

Could be, but "matter" in what specific manner?