[lit-ideas] Re: Do ideas exist before being articulated?

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:51:52 EDT

Sorry -- since I'm copying these posts, I sometimes unintentionally change  
the subject-matter, as I don't have the reply function when working  online.
 
McCreery did not like my name-dropping of functionalism, behaviourism, and  
mentalism.
 
So let's have a close reading of the post initiating this thread:
 
>Pondering the conversation about what goes on before we speak, I  note
>that two possibilities are in play.
>1. Classical--We possess  ideas of which we are partly or wholly
>unaware until they are spoken. Cf.  Plato, Leibniz (rebutting Locke),
>Chomsky, Freud.
>2. Modern--Ideas  only emerge as we speak them. What goes on inside us
>is a confluence of  pre-linguistic processes that crystallize at the
>moment we speak. Cf.  Vico, Minsky,Klein a good deal of current
>research in such fields as  psychology and political science that
>indicates that processes  conventionally described as "emotional"
>proceed those described as  "rational," which turn out, more often than
>not, to be after the fact  rationalizations of decisions already made.

Well, the  whole issue would require some clarification. 'idea' itself, as 
you know, is  Plato's neologism. It's derived from "vid-" and hence to 
perception, as in  'visual'. He meant 'vision of the mind', but the 'mental 
side' to it 
is notably  not demonstrated. For that reason, Hume preferred to talk of 
'impression' and  leave 'idea' as something like 'an impression of an 
impression'. 
Now, the  interface of this perceptual content should be with the behavioural 
output --  very much, if you don't like Watson, a la Skinner in his "Verbal 
Behaviour". The  expression of a perception in a flow of signals meant to be 
shared with other  creatures or not.
The point  about 'sharing' is important. Wager may find something funny and 
laugh "Ha!", or  even say aloud "This is funny" -- so the articulation of his 
joy is not  addressee-directed, it seems.
Grice has  studied cases where what is a 'natural' response (like a 
spontaneous laughter)  can become a manipulated symbol. One can simulate tears, 
for 
example, or even  verbally express, "I'm AWFULLY sorry" without really 
_meaning_ 
it. 
The point I  was trying to make by talking of functionalism, versus mentalism 
and  behaviourism, is that there is a philosophical alternative. For 
mentalists,  there must be something in the 'black box' (the rules and 
representations 
that  Chomsky talks about, to which he even ascribe innate properties). For 
the  behaviourists _and_ the functionalists, it's just a _black box_. The  
behaviourists think they can do without the black box at all; the 
functionalists  
argue that the box is needed as a 'theoretical construct' that provides a 
bridge  between the perceptual input (the idea if you will) and the behavioural 
output  (the discourse). 
 
Questions of  temporality seem pretty secondary. As you say, it's mostly ex 
post facto  phenomena anyway. Note that with a verb like "meaning", it's rare 
to  express:
 
What have you  been doing lately (this afternoon)?
 
Oh, I have  been meaning that Descartes was possibly right, after all.
 
"Meaning" is  not like "thinking" -- To say that you have spent the evening 
"thinking that  perhaps Descares was possibly right" need not any behavioural 
correlate.  You could be thinking that while playing golf, for example. In any 
case,  that thought would only be developed once your mate asks, you, "What do 
you  mean, 'possibly right after all'. And then you start to philosophize and 
 verbalise, and discourse, and you keep perceiving your addressee's 
reactions,  and you keep self-hearing what you are saying to help express your 
view in 
a  clearer way, which is not what I'm doing right now!
 
                   Good night!
 
                           JL 
St. Michael Hall,
Calle 58, No. 611,
La Plata B1900  BPY
Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tel. 54 221 425 7817
Fax 54  221 425  9205
http://www.stmichaels.com.ar

jls@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
http://www.netverk/~jls.htm



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Other related posts: