N
Nihilist
Guest
You have your facts wrong. There are no wars or acts of oppression among animals. Sometimes there is localized and short-time conflict (over food or territory). But there is nothing like revenge or hatred.
- Status
P
petra22
Guest
I don’t think we have to worry about getting rid of language… What would I do with my T-shirt that says, “HELP! I’M TALKING AND I CAN’T SHUT UP!”
G
GEddie
Guest
“We spend a year getting kids to walk and talk; then 17 years getting them to sit down and shut up”
Unknown
C
ClearWater
Guest
When attempting to solve a problem, we need to first identify where, and what, it really is.
I’ve heard some talk about how, if someone is thowing babies into a river, that we can rescue baby after baby after baby, but a better approach would be to find the person doing all that, stop him from throwing the babies in!
By saying language is the problem, the root of everything from war to domestic disputes is grossly misdiagnosing the problem.
That’s not where the problem is. It’s elsewhere.
I wish I could come up with an adequate analogy to try to illustrate why trying to do away with all language is not the solution to war or arguments.
Can someone help me with an analogy?
C
ClearWater
Guest
I guess one analogy is that you would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
C
ClearWater
Guest
You would like us to rid ourselves of distructive language, say, abusive language not ALL language.
N
Nihilist
Guest
I’m not saying we should try to ‘abolish language’.
But, maybe, at an individual level, to silence the mind would be a good thing- not ask question “Why is this person doing this?”, “What does this mean?”- not to formulate theories or arguments, not to form opinions. Sure, words will sometimes be necessary, to procure the material necessities of life.
But perhaps it would be a good thing for people to withdraw from the ‘web’ of language (and its accompanying values), and just to see reality as it is, without have a symbolic order of thoughts and concepts intervening.
G
GEddie
Guest
Death will silence my mind soon enough, I have precisely zero interest or willingness to do so ahead of time.
ICXC NIKA
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
Disclaimer: I am not a philosopher, nor do I play one on TV.I don’t even like philosophy, I believe it makes people overthink things. Just sayin.’
These are all not functions of language (though we can verbalize them), but of reason.
Language is a tool. Yes, you can go out growing pumpkins with your rake and hoe, but someone can still come along and decide that they want your pumpkins and they’ll take your hoe and whack you upside the head with it. No words are necessary. Stopping language will not stop hate and violence, it will just stop the ability to verbalize it.
It’s usually when people run out of arguments that they resort to violence…
Tools are not in and of themselves evil. What we do (with or without them) can be.
How does one communicate one’s basic needs – like hunger – without words? If one is able to do so, then another would be also able to refuse on the grounds that there is no food to give. And do so even if there is food – thus, lying. And then hungry person finds out there really was food, and gets angry, and attacks the person who denied them. Revenge and violence.
Sin is inherent in fallen humans. Taking away language does not take away one whit our propensity for it. It does take away (or at least severely inhibit) our ability to learn of Jesus’ sacrifice and how to avoid sin.
So what is better – to eschew words and language, or to stop using language for evil and start using it for what it was originally intended for: to glorify God?
As I said above, I’m no philosopher, never studied it, don’t know all the big words and theories and don’t sit in the tubs often. So I could be completely wrong.
Also no faith, love, hope…
These are all not functions of language (though we can verbalize them), but of reason.
Language is a tool. Yes, you can go out growing pumpkins with your rake and hoe, but someone can still come along and decide that they want your pumpkins and they’ll take your hoe and whack you upside the head with it. No words are necessary. Stopping language will not stop hate and violence, it will just stop the ability to verbalize it.
It’s usually when people run out of arguments that they resort to violence…
Tools are not in and of themselves evil. What we do (with or without them) can be.
How does one communicate one’s basic needs – like hunger – without words? If one is able to do so, then another would be also able to refuse on the grounds that there is no food to give. And do so even if there is food – thus, lying. And then hungry person finds out there really was food, and gets angry, and attacks the person who denied them. Revenge and violence.
Sin is inherent in fallen humans. Taking away language does not take away one whit our propensity for it. It does take away (or at least severely inhibit) our ability to learn of Jesus’ sacrifice and how to avoid sin.
So what is better – to eschew words and language, or to stop using language for evil and start using it for what it was originally intended for: to glorify God?
As I said above, I’m no philosopher, never studied it, don’t know all the big words and theories and don’t sit in the tubs often. So I could be completely wrong.
- Status