Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein, thought and words
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:51:35 -0700
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> .... I think there are two ideas here.
>
> 1. Voicing the thought to your yourself, in which case you are literally
> speaking to yourself, but your voice box and mouth are not involved. Maybe,
> perhaps, in some cases, the lips do move, making it appear that you are
> talking to yourself. That happens to me all the time. My daughter and I laugh
> at how we both get caught in weird moments socially, where people see us
> muttering or "lipping" something to ourselves. But whether you actually move
> the lips or or involve the voice box, there are times when we explicitly
> voice our thoughts to ourselves (as strange as that is to say).
>
I heard once, but don't know if it's true, that St. Augustine stood
out from those around him being able to read without (a) making an
utterance and (b) without even moving his lips. Reading as a
perfectly silent activity, with no sounds associated therewith, had
not really caught on yet and it's actually a learned skill. If you've
never seen someone read silently before, it might come across as quite
special. Like I said, this story might be apocryphal.
> 2. At other times, I would argue the same sort of thing goes on, except we
> are not voicing it, even as a whisper to ourselves. Imagine a process running
> in the mind and you could see it on a youtube video. The flash player allows
> you to mute the audio. In many ways, thoughts that are not being voiced to
> ourselves merely occur as though the mute button is on. The same exact
> process goes on, except the audiology function isn't needed (activated).
> Indeed, it might slow down the process. Or perhaps it is so simple of a
> thought that it could be done in passing, only part attentive.
>
I'd say we could each go into quite a bit of introspective detail on
things we'd call "thinking" as that's one of the language games: to
"observe oneself thinking" and to come back with all these (sometimes
fantastic) reports.
People are all over the map in how they describe an "inner process" to
the point where we could impute a "private language" to every one of
us, with the immediate caveat that what's private to each of us is
precisely that with no public meaning, so don't be surprised if people
look at you quizzically or tune out, the more you become focused on
what you want to call your mental process or processes. Don't expect
consensus or everyone "on the same page".
Novels and film helped to standardize different forms of interiority
though. Novelists and screenwriters have given us new handles on said
"lives of the mind".
The ability to say one thing while thinking another is considered by
Nietzsche a source of consciousness itself, and traces back to a need
to be deceptive, to have secrets.
These were the little people (literally) who developed in this
direction: the big blundering oafs with brute strength (recalling
Genealogy of Morals) had less need to be sly. Higher consciousness
came from nerds, living in fear of jocks, and needing to tell lies.
> Of course, one really can't get at the matter very well without pausing to
> think of what "thinking" is. That's really a garbage term. Consider all of
> the behaviors that could be stuck inside that word. They seem endless. Surely
> these tasks (behaviors) are numerous and express themselves in their own
> ways. Before one could tackle the problem, we would need to know what SENSE
> of "think" and "word" we had in mind. Otherwise, it would all be done with a
> bazooka.
>
Yes. To be "deep in thought" per the Rodin statue, is to be somewhat
motionless, like a reader. You say things like "don't bother me I'm
thinking". Your focus is on some "inner vista" as we say, a kind of
Windows (might need rebooting).
Kirby
> Regards and thanks.
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
> Assistant Professor
> Wright State University
> Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
> Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein, thought and words
>
> I have never been convinced that thinking is something done in words.
> It has always seemed to me that thinking is done on ideas, and the
> words sometimes come along for a free ride.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
