Life without language?

[Nihilist]

I’ve been reading John Zerzan’s work on the origin and meaning of language. I’m struck by his contention that humanity existed for billions of years without language, and that the appearance of language (along with number and the concept of time) is the source of much unhappiness.

And thinking about it- a lot of human troubles depend upon language- like wars are fought about whether a piece of land is ‘called’ Israel or Palestine, or whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just the Father. Without language, such conflicts are impossible to imagine. Of course, the could still be some conflicts without language- but only simply and localized ones, like- who gets this piece of fruit, or who lives in this cave, etc.

On a personal level, it seems a lot of problems that plague individuals arise from language- like worries “Are they criticizing me behind my back?”, “Am I successful?”, or (my own favorite), “Is life, in its totality, futile?”. Without language, the concept of ‘life in its totality’ and ‘futility’ don’t even seem functional as ideas.

As a thought experiment, I tried not having any verbally formulated thoughts for an a few hours, not listening to music or media with words, and not talking to anyone for a few hours- to create a ‘language-free’ zone. It strikes me as quite liberating- although my initial reaction was boredom- to want to read, or something, to re-immerse myself in language- exactly like I was a cigarette addict trying to stop. But, perhaps, if carried on for long enough, such an experiment would lead to an ‘immediate’ grasp of reality, and a clarification of what are ‘real issues’ as opposed to mere verbal chimerae.

Without language, the totality of suffering would be hunger, physical pain, and separation from loved ones. Lying and manipulation would be impossible. Anxiety over issues which are imaginary or socially constructed, would be extinct. Domination of others (except by immediate, localized force) would be impossible.

Would life be better without language?

 

[GEddie]

First of all, human life did not exist for billions of years without language. Human life is less than one million years old.

Second, whatever damage is caused by the use of language is far outweighed by the advantage of being able to share thoughts and knowledge. Without language, we would be
limited to existence at the animal level of bare subsistence, picked off by predators and numbering no more than a few thousand.

Think of it this way. The human throat structure is optimized for speech, but this comes with a cost: The 90[sup]O[/sup] angle bend in our breathing passage makes choking far more likely. Clearly, the advantages of speech more than compensate for this hazard to life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ProVobis]

Language isn’t necessarily spoken. There is, after all, sign language. There is body language. And, of course, there is written and drawn language. (A picture is worth a thousand words?)

Spoken language, it seems to me, is one primarily of convenience/expediency, although now it can be recorded for generations, if anyone can understand it a thousand years from now.

 

[ClearWater]

I’ve been reading John Zerzan’s work on the origin and meaning of language. I’m struck by his contention that humanity existed for billions of years without language, and that the appearance of language (along with number and the concept of time) is the source of much unhappiness.

And thinking about it- a lot of human troubles depend upon language- like wars are fought about whether a piece of land is ‘called’ Israel or Palestine, or whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just the Father. Without language, such conflicts are impossible to imagine. Of course, the could still be some conflicts without language- but only simply and localized ones, like- who gets this piece of fruit, or who lives in this cave, etc.

On a personal level, it seems a lot of problems that plague individuals arise from language- like worries “Are they criticizing me behind my back?”, “Am I successful?”, or (my own favorite), “Is life, in its totality, futile?”. Without language, the concept of ‘life in its totality’ and ‘futility’ don’t even seem functional as ideas.

As a thought experiment, I tried not having any verbally formulated thoughts for an a few hours, not listening to music or media with words, and not talking to anyone for a few hours- to create a ‘language-free’ zone. It strikes me as quite liberating- although my initial reaction was boredom- to want to read, or something, to re-immerse myself in language- exactly like I was a cigarette addict trying to stop. But, perhaps, if carried on for long enough, such an experiment would lead to an ‘immediate’ grasp of reality, and a clarification of what are ‘real issues’ as opposed to mere verbal chimerae.

Without language, the totality of suffering would be hunger, physical pain, and separation from loved ones. Lying and manipulation would be impossible. Anxiety over issues which are imaginary or socially constructed, would be extinct. Domination of others (except by immediate, localized force) would be impossible.

Would life be better without language?

No, life wouldn’t be better without language.

If you doubt what I’m saying, just try taking a vow of silence, but even if you used sign language, that would also be a language. You would be lucky to make it through one single day without communication let alone a lifetime.

We are not an island. We absolutely need others to survive, more now than ever. Without language, how would one get one’s needs met? How would you eat? Where would you live? What would you do?

Would you even be able to have, or raise, a family without some form of language?

Don’t all cultures have language? If it wasn’t necessary, why would it always be there? It is an awful lot of trouble to go through if it’s all for naught.

Language has its drawbacks all depending on who is using it. You say it’s brought all evil into the world, but it has also brought goodness. The 10 commandments are an example of language being used for a positive purpose and, of course, the Bible.

Is it language that’s the problem or thoughts which are later expressed in language?

Animals have ways of communicating. Bees, birds, and dolphins communicate. So, are we to try to be less than insects and animals?

You would have a hard time functioning in today’s world without language. If the people of an entire city were suddenly unable to communicate, that would not bring peace and quiet. It would bring chaos.

Language is also used to hold families together. It allows societies to grow. It allows us to collect taxes which can give us hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure. Without that, you would be basically just trying to survive, not live.

It would be a tremendous step backwards, going back to the caveman stage. Even cavemen, I think, found ways to communicate with each other.

Evil is not caused by language. Even if it were somehow possible to take away language altogether, evil would still exist.

Language allows us to express love, affection.

I know it’s easy to look back at the past with nostalgia, thinking it was better, but was it?

Some of the biggest problems I have ever had in my life have been caused, or worsened, by a breakdown in communication.

Let’s talk about relationships. I asked a friend with a nice marriage her secret. She said, “communication”. In counseling, when people aren’t communicating enough, it causes problems. They will tell them they should talk to each other or sometimes with a counselor.

Hospitals, schools, churches, internet, stores would all be impossible without language.

I have taught English as a Second Language. I have worked with those from other countries who can’t communicate, and it’s very hard. They almost can’t function, and I was a professional interpreter. They actually paid me to help them communicate. That’s how important they thought it was.

Other than spoken language, sign, we have “body language”. Some suggest that possibly 80% of communication is non-verbal. Still, even it forms a kind of language.

So, I don’t know how one would avoid language. I guess we’d need to define what constitutes “language”, but I don’t know how anyone would survive in modern times without any communication …or want to.

 

[ClearWater]

I learned Braille, because I wanted to be able to work with people with visual handicaps. Of course, without Braille, I have speech.

However, without Braille or speech, how would they ever learn anything?

How could anyone ever teach? We would be ignorant.

Language is a double-edged sword bringing good and evil. It’s a tool, but a tool isn’t necessarily bad. It’s how it’s used.

 

[ClearWater]

The closest thing I can think of life without language would be, say, Helen Keller, who was both deaf and blind, could NOT communicate. Now, do you think this inability to communicate made her a happier person? Did conflict with her stop?

Communication was KEY.

They sent a teacher who knew how to communicate to someone who was both blind and deaf. Without that teacher, it was quite brutal.

A young French teen came up with the system of Braille, and wow was he hailed as hero, finally a means of written communication for the blind!

 

[Nihilist]

First of all, human life did not exist for billions of years without language. Human life is less than one million years old.

Second, whatever damage is caused by the use of language is far outweighed by the advantage of being able to share thoughts and knowledge. Without language, we would be
limited to existence at the animal level of bare subsistence, picked off by predators and numbering no more than a few thousand.

Think of it this way. The human throat structure is optimized for speech, but this comes with a cost: The 90[sup]O[/sup] angle bend in our breathing passage makes choking far more likely. Clearly, the advantages of speech more than compensate for this hazard to life.

ICXC NIKA

OK, the billion was just a number. But is a kind of subsistence existence actually happier? If life was just picking fruit, until you had enough for the day, and then sleeping or doing paintings, or whatever, etc… “Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.”

I agree, language means we can build bigger cities, have more complex economies, ‘better’ technology etc, etc. But does that actually make us happier?

 

[petra22]

No, life wouldn’t be better without language.

If you doubt what I’m saying, just try taking a vow of silence, but even if you used sign language, that would also be a language. You would be lucky to make it through one single day without communication let alone a lifetime.

We are not an island. We absolutely need others to survive, more now than ever. Without language, how would one get one’s needs met? How would you eat? Where would you live? What would you do?

Would you even be able to have, or raise, a family without some form of language?

Don’t all cultures have language? If it wasn’t necessary, why would it always be there? It is an awful lot of trouble to go through if it’s all for naught.

Language has its drawbacks all depending on who is using it. You say it’s brought all evil into the world, but it has also brought goodness. The 10 commandments are an example of language being used for a positive purpose and, of course, the Bible.

Is it language that’s the problem or thoughts which are later expressed in language?

Animals have ways of communicating. Bees, birds, and dolphins communicate. So, are we to try to be less than insects and animals?

You would have a hard time functioning in today’s world without language. If the people of an entire city were suddenly unable to communicate, that would not bring peace and quiet. It would bring chaos.

Language is also used to hold families together. It allows societies to grow. It allows us to collect taxes which can give us hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure. Without that, you would be basically just trying to survive, not live.

It would be a tremendous step backwards, going back to the caveman stage. Even cavemen, I think, found ways to communicate with each other.

Evil is not caused by language. Even if it were somehow possible to take away language altogether, evil would still exist.

Language allows us to express love, affection.

I know it’s easy to look back at the past with nostalgia, thinking it was better, but was it?

Some of the biggest problems I have ever had in my life have been caused, or worsened, by a breakdown in communication.

Let’s talk about relationships. I asked a friend with a nice marriage her secret. She said, “communication”. In counseling, when people aren’t communicating enough, it causes problems. They will tell them they should talk to each other or sometimes with a counselor.

Hospitals, schools, churches, internet, stores would all be impossible without language.

I have taught English as a Second Language. I have worked with those from other countries who can’t communicate, and it’s very hard. They almost can’t function, and I was a professional interpreter. They actually paid me to help them communicate. That’s how important they thought it was.

Other than spoken language, sign, we have “body language”. Some suggest that possibly 80% of communication is non-verbal. Still, even it forms a kind of language.

So, I don’t know how one would avoid language. I guess we’d need to define what constitutes “language”, but I don’t know how anyone would survive in modern times without any communication …or want to.

Well said, excellent use of language… I just remember Jesus is the Word and language is alright with me… It’s a GOOD thing.

 

[ClearWater]

OK, the billion was just a number. But is a kind of subsistence existence actually happier? If life was just picking fruit, until you had enough for the day, and then sleeping or doing paintings, or whatever, etc… “Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.”

I agree, language means we can build bigger cities, have more complex economies, ‘better’ technology etc, etc. But does that actually make us happier?

Again, do you think you would be a happier person if someone put you in a tropical location where nobody spoke a common language, that if you picked fruit, slept and did paintings would be a satisfying life?

Wouldn’t you want to one day have something besides coconuts? Look at Tom Hanks on “Cast Away”.

One day, you would want something else, something more. You’d want a piece of bread, need protein. You would need to communicate with another human being to get your needs satisfied.

How would you have a relationship with the opposite sex? If you’re a man, would you tell a woman you wanted to be with her by hitting her over the head with a rock, dragging her away by her hair?

Over a long period, language and body language have developed.

I worked with English as a Second Language, and we once had a guy from Africa. I knew a tiny amount of French, just enough to tell him what time to get to class. I searched for someone who might have a common language, since he knew, several…I forget, maybe 5 or 7?

So, I found another man from Africa, and I was all excited that we’d finally be able to communicate, but they didn’t have any common language! I had more in common with my broken French!

Language has a powerful unifying effect. There is nothing more comforting to someone than communicating to them in their native language. I have broken through all kinds of barriers by speaking to someone in the US in Spanish. There can often be an almost instant rapport.

Yeah, we have wars, but look at all the rest.

How would we ever do disaster relief without language? How would we have intervened, say, after Hurricane Katrina? or a tsunami?

Language really isn’t the problem. By thinking it’s language, it’s like a doctor misdiagnosing a patient.

Where is the problem? I think the problem is when we misuse language, abuse it, when we fail to use it when we need to.

Look at all the problems caused by miscommunications.

If you have a hurricane, how many lives can be spared by evacuating in time or telling people to hide in a basement during a tornado?

What about people teaching basic hygiene, to brush your teeth, floss or to eat vegetables and fruit?

How would one get clean water, toilet paper, books, movies?

What would one do for fun? I think I’d be bored if I couldn’t communicate AND lonely.

What you probably are taking exception to isn’t language but possibly materialism? complexity of our lives with the technology?

However, would you really not want to be able to communicate even in grunts?

Would you really truly want to be utterly ignorant of everything? never to have been taught by parents or teachers, anything at all through language?

I think you long for a simpler existence, but it can be gotten with language, as well. Move to the country, and live on a farm for a simpler existence. However, some say that without our friendships and love, life would feel very purposeless and empty.

 

[balto]

I agree, language means we can build bigger cities, have more complex economies, ‘better’ technology etc, etc. But does that actually make us happier?

Well language itself is something that flows from having a rational nature. We have intellectual conceptions and reasoning and desire to share that knowledge with others via communication. It’s good for us given our nature to do so.

As to having more complexity and better technology making us happy, no it doesn’t make us happy and never will. We’ve been trying that experiment trillions of times over and it has a 100% failure rate, yet it’s the one thing we refuse to accept that won’t work. The only reason why we say it does is because we delude ourselves into thinking that coming to acquire or accomplish something will actually make us happy and then spend time pursuing it to take our minds off of thinking of the wretched state we’re all in. Try sitting alone with yourself and see how long it takes before your mind wanders or you start drawing shapes on the floor with your fingers. If you’re like me you won’t make it past a couple of minutes. Yet if we were happy we wouldn’t need to “get things done” to take our mind off of anything because we’d be quite content simply “being” in that state. But despite all that we all know that we are greater than the animals and are destined for happiness (where did we get this conception of happiness if it doesn’t exist?), yet we cannot seem to get to it. Man is a walking paradox.

I think you should check this book out because it might make things more clearer to you, based on the questions you have been asking recently: Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees. (And no I am not suggesting you read it because I think you are a closet pagan )

 

[ClearWater]

I live in Mexico, and for 2 years, I trekked up the mountain to teach the indigenous people how to read and write …in SPANISH!

They often didn’t have bathrooms. I asked where the bathroom was, and they said anywhere outside would be fine.

Although, their lives were VERY hard. They lived in tiny shacks where it rained inside, too, and the cold came in. There wasn’t electricity in some of the houses when I first went.

There was no a/c, no fan. Their houses were put together using soda/beer can tops as…washers…or don’t know what that’d be. They cooked over a fire, inside the house.

Even they had language! I can’t even imagine what it’d be like with no language at all. It’d be more primitive than even that!

I’ve been to one house in the dark when they went about with candlelight.

They didn’t know so many things. Some had never gone to school, ever, women, especially and girls. Some girls were prevented by their fathers. Later, some women wanted to attend, were prevented by their husbands.

They didn’t know so many things you and I take for granted.

I knew of one indigenous woman who had 4 children, and out of the 4, 3 had died! This was very common there! The child would get something like diarrhea, and they wouldn’t know what to do, not realize the danger, and their children would actually die!

Again, they could speak Spanish, just not read or write.

Oh, and I went back years later, and even they had made some progress, had gotten a lightbulb!

You are looking at the symptoms of the problem and saying one symptom is the problem.

Someone’s abusing language doesn’t make language necessarily the problem. The problem is when it’s abused. Language, in and of itself, is NOT the problem.

Even Tom Hanks in Cast Away found it necessary to talk to himself to keep from going crazy!

We need people in more ways than you realize. If you even think you can last one single day in this modern world without others, you are very mistaken.

Even primitive peoples had people who sold items…fruits, vegetables, made shoes, etc. They needed to have currencies and all manner of things to make a society work.

We need a government to have law and order. Otherwise, there would be anarchy!

I once read a book on disaster relief. In a disaster, one of the very first things that needs to happen is to reestablish law and order. Until that happens, not much else can be done.

How could anyone have any laws or rules? It would be utter chaos without language.
Language helps to bring order, among other things. It facilitates everything else, makes it possible.

 

[ClearWater]

Okay, we’ll put you outside in the wild and have you try to fend for yourself. Okay, you pick fruit. You go in a cave. Then, you eventually need protein and other things.

You might not know how to make a shelter, because that was something you learned from teachers, movies, the scouts, magazines, etc.

You don’t know which herbs you can eat or not. You have no books, no teachers, nobody to tell you anything. You’d be ignorant but in the extreme.

You wouldn’t even know you needed protein, what protein was, or much of anything.

People who can’t read, say, think differently, very concretely, can’t as easily reason abstractly.

We have learned through games. How would you play with anyone?

No, I think you don’t have a problem with language, but consider that if we all tried to live like on a farm that with all the people on this planet, that way of life might not work any longer. Well, we probably need cities, since the population is such that we can’t all live on a farm.

Further, people trek in to cities, because often, there’s not enough work to sustain and pay the bills. So, people congregate where the work is, where services and other people are.

 

[GEddie]

OK, the billion was just a number. But is a kind of subsistence existence actually happier? If life was just picking fruit, until you had enough for the day, and then sleeping or doing paintings, or whatever, etc… “Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.”

I agree, language means we can build bigger cities, have more complex economies, ‘better’ technology etc, etc. But does that actually make us happier?

Define happier, that’s the primary problem.

If nothing else, our current human world allows (many times) more people to live longer than they would as animals. The human body is really a lousy animal; we’d be dying en masse from skin infections and getting eaten by predators as a matter of course.

Because there are more human beings living longer, there are more chances for happiness.

And some things you blame language for aren’t about that at all. The war in Israel isn’t about a name, it’s about two groups of people who want to live in an area too small to be shared. Guess what, baboons fight territorially as well.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Nihilist]

Here’s the link to the article:

primitivism.com/language.htm

Don’t get me wrong- I am not really arguing for his position. But, I think there are some pretty strong points.

The main points I would raise against it are precisely those mentioned here:

• having language permits us to cope better with hardship of the natural world, and to procure a higher standard of material welfare and security- which, if not happiness in itself, is certainly a help
• there seems to be a human need to communicate.

In refutation of the second point, though, he says we can communicate without language (e.g. love, desire, joy, sorrow, etc.). I am not convinced by this, as any attempt to communicate something (even, “Hello” or, “I am not feeling well”) would tend to lead to some form of proto-language.

On the other hand- perhaps its true to say linguistic things can get too complex. For example, often I have spent an evening lying on a bed, reading Derrida or something. Then I have thought, why am I polluting my brain with words, when, in ‘reality’ I am just lying on a bed? Why not just rest?

How much of human life is spent just dealing with words and ideas? Our real physical and even social needs are quite simple (food, shelter, possible to be in a loving small group, to have some form of entertainment) are very little. Yet, the whole edifice of society is enormously complex, and actually seems to be contrary, in many cases, to satisfying ‘real’ human needs.

 

[ClearWater]

Here’s the link to the article:

primitivism.com/language.htm

Don’t get me wrong- I am not really arguing for his position. But, I think there are some pretty strong points.

The main points I would raise against it are precisely those mentioned here:

• having language permits us to cope better with hardship of the natural world, and to procure a higher standard of material welfare and security- which, if not happiness in itself, is certainly a help
• there seems to be a human need to communicate.

In refutation of the second point, though, he says we can communicate without language (e.g. love, desire, joy, sorrow, etc.). I am not convinced by this, as any attempt to communicate something (even, “Hello” or, “I am not feeling well”) would tend to lead to some form of proto-language.

On the other hand- perhaps its true to say linguistic things can get too complex. For example, often I have spent an evening lying on a bed, reading Derrida or something. Then I have thought, why am I polluting my brain with words, when, in ‘reality’ I am just lying on a bed? Why not just rest?

How much of human life is spent just dealing with words and ideas?** Our real physical and even social needs are quite simple (food, shelter, possible to be in a loving small group, to have some form of entertainment) are very little.** Yet, the whole edifice of society is enormously complex, and actually seems to be contrary, in many cases, to satisfying ‘real’ human needs.

To even achieve food, shelter, entertainment and a small, loving group, you will need to communicate.

So, communication doesn’t seem to be the issue.

I think you are talking about the longing for a simpler, less complex or complicated existence but WITH language.

I think you’re envisioning life on a farm where you are more self sufficient with your own cows, chickens, pigs. However, even on a farm, you will one day need something that’s not on your farm, or want something not on there…for your health, happiness.

I don’t believe you would be happy living like an indigenous person. I hung out with the indigenous people, and it is hard. They can’t talk much about politics are certain concepts, because those, we often get from books, TV, etc.

Indigenous people are often quite simple. If you are an educated person, you will tend to long to be with other educated people like yourself. I doubt you would be happy with people who were illiterate and unable to communicate.

 

[Nihilist]

To even achieve food, shelter, entertainment and a small, loving group, you will need to communicate.

So, communication doesn’t seem to be the issue.

I think you are talking about the longing for a simpler, less complex or complicated existence but WITH language.

I think you’re envisioning life on a farm where you are more self sufficient with your own cows, chickens, pigs. However, even on a farm, you will one day need something that’s not on your farm, or want something not on there…for your health, happiness.

I don’t believe you would be happy living like an indigenous person. I hung out with the indigenous people, and it is hard. They can’t talk much about politics are certain concepts, because those, we often get from books, TV, etc.

Indigenous people are often quite simple. If you are an educated person, you will tend to long to be with other educated people like yourself. I doubt you would be happy with people who were illiterate and unable to communicate.

Yes, I also worked in education with indigenous people. Unfortunately, they weren’t happy, but there was much drunkeness, violence and suicide, etc.

So, it seems like the idea of a ‘happy primitives’ is just a romantic fantasy…

 

[ClearWater]

You seem to be craving a small town, but again, due to the world’s ever-increasing population, not everybody can live on a farm for a bunch of reasons.

I live in a city, because there are services here.

I’ve known people who have lived way out where there aren’t hardly buses that go, and there’s a guy who will rent out his truck and take a truckload of people back and forth. I have a lady I know who never went to school, because there wasn’t one where she lived. She said that and she tried not to cry.

Yes, there are advantages to a small, simple life, but the problem I think is mostly the lack of values. If people were all kind, truthful, didn’t steal, and lived with values of some kind, we could have cities and be okay, even so.

 

[ClearWater]

Yeah, there was some of the most blatant drunkeness I’ve ever seen in some indigenous places. Once, there was a guy who was passed out, think he was in the street. I asked if we should do anything, but they just made a gesture of drinking.

I’ve come across others, likewise, drinking, as you said.

I tutor a blind student who lives way out, has to get rides, and often, he can’t make it into school. He’s not a happier person for it, I assure you.

There are organizations that try to go out to these locations, but it’s not enough.

Once most people have tasted life in the first world, say, it’d be extraordinarily difficult to ever want to go back.

 

[Oreoracle]

Going back to the topic of language though, it is true that we wouldn’t be able to express disagreements as easily without language. However, it’s debateable whether we would even have such disagreements without language, because we wouldn’t be able to clearly express certain concepts, even to ourselves. You mentioned the conflicts that arise from labelling countries, but it would be difficult to be a nationalist in the first place without being able to articulate the notion of “this is my country”.

So we may have less fighting, but we’d have less to fight for.

 

[GEddie]

Going back to the topic of language though, it is true that we wouldn’t be able to express disagreements as easily without language. However, it’s debateable whether we would even have such disagreements without language, because we wouldn’t be able to clearly express certain concepts, even to ourselves. You mentioned the conflicts that arise from labelling countries, but it would be difficult to be a nationalist in the first place without being able to articulate the notion of “this is my country”.

So we may have less fighting, but we’d have less to fight for.

There wouldn’t even be less fighting. Our animal cousins, lacking language or even larynxes, fight all the time.

ICXC NIKA