[lit-ideas] Re: Must the Word be Literate?
- From: Eric Dean <ecdean99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:55:51 +0000
Donal writes:
“Yes, but this would not show that there were not operative 'mental states'
prior to linguistic expression - even if saying what the content of those
states are _in language_ inevitably gives them "a linguistic shape." And if
there are operative 'mental states' prior to their expression - or some kind of
expression derived from them - then surely it does say something to speak of
this as being the case. “The alternatives, either that mental states and their
linguistic expression are simultaneous or the mental state of a linguistic
expression follows that expression, are surely even more problematic?”
Donal’s argument seems to be that there are three alternatives – mental states
either precede, are simultaneous with or follow their linguistic expressions.
The latter two seeming more problematic, we’re left with the notion that mental
states precede their expression in language.
The problem is that the assertion of the alternatives already begs the
question. In order to have the three alternatives, one must already have
distinguished things to be called mental states from their linguistic
expressions. If one accepts, as I’m not ready to do except for the sake of
argument, that there is a clear sense of how one would identify a linguistic
expression (certain types (?) of sound a human makes, types of mark on a piece
of paper), how would one identify a mental state? Without a clear definition
of a mental state, and especially a definition that clearly segregates it from
its linguistic expression, there is no way to know which of the three
alternatives Donal offers actually obtains, nor even whether those alternatives
are exhaustive.
Maybe mental states bear the same sort of relation to their linguistic
expressions that digestive states bear to their linguistic expressions –
sometimes I have indigestion before I speak about it, sometimes I have
indigestion after I speak about it, and sometimes I have indigestion at the
same time that I speak about it.
OK, I know that's a quibble on the meaning of "their" in the phrase "...their
linguistic expression", but what's needed is a precise explanation of what the
difference is between saying that a linguistic expression is an expression of a
mental state and that it is an expression of (about) a digestive state -- what
work does the "about" do in the latter case that's not needed in the former and
why?
Regards to one and all,
Eric Dean
Phoenix --> DC
Other related posts:
