Reminder that you never invented any words of your own...

I'm not trying to signal being smart, stop projecting.
If you are offended by what I said, please, explain why.

>I have to think about what I want to think about in an inner voice before the cognition can occur

You don't actually believe this do you? What an utter endocognitomorph

>what i stated is true for any language.
I disagree because that would mean that every language is conditioned by a prior language, leading to a paradox of infinite regress. There is original language.

>What does this mean, really?
It means that my experience of phenomena is based on forms that are antecedent to any phenomena that could be called language or symbols.

The image in your mind that arises out of your impulse to imagine a given thing is contingent, and you need a word to imagine something. I don't think you can imagine something without a word for it. But even if you can, the intention to imagine this given thing is not random, it arises in a context that is also contingent on the processes i referenced.
>that would mean that every language is conditioned by a prior language, leading to a paradox of infinite regress
I think language arises out of a single event in humanity. I'm still researching about the topic, but look up "generative anthropology"
>It means that my experience of phenomena is based on forms that are antecedent to any phenomena that could be called language or symbols
I will think about this.

It's amazing to me that 20th century philosophy, when realizing that, didn't recognize that conservatism (not in the American sense of the world, but in the XIXth century one) was right, instead it doubled down on emancipatory politics and shallow rebellious attitudes. Such a massive cope.

Yea Forums has invented many multiple words though

Let's suppose you're right about language. In this case all you've shown is that I can't *communicate* ideas unshackled from the limits of the language I speak. It doesn't say anything about my thoughts.

This is also to overlook the obvious issue to be found with you using language to criticize language.

So what now?

Wow, brooooh. Really deep brooh. Like, this is deep brooooh. You are sooo deep brooh. What if my red isn't the same as your red brooooh.

People are making fun of you because you thought this basic idea warranted a thread. Wow, languages affect the way we think? Yeah, no shit. You didn't even bother to expand the idea to something like "systems structures change that which they contain", and even that is painfully obvious. And to think you needed that huge paragraph to explain that languages change us.

Waaaah. Waaaah. I don't wike wanguage because it simuwates the phenomenowogicaw worwd.

Why don't you not teach your children language if it's such a big problem? Because that's retarded, and even you know it.

Is language not any group of actions of self-expression?

>It doesn't say anything about my thoughts.
it does says something about the limits of your thoughts.
>issue to be found with you using language to criticize language
what is the issue?
>what if my red isn't the same as your red
my post isn't about this. stop misrepresenting.
>languages affect the way we think
language doesn't "affect" the way we think, because we cannot even think without language. there are philosophical assumptions in the language you use you will never be able to uncover or change, unless you experience and integrate them in a mediated way using your current language as a bridge.
>i don't like language
never said that
>language simulates the phenomenological world
didn't say that either.
Language is essentially representation, including all signifiers (words, signals..) and signifieds (concepts the words refer to) you use.

I don't dispute that you can create new names for things of phenomena, but you do that in light of the words you already know. You cannot create a different and new language from scratch, changing the philosophical assumptions behind our current language.

Does a blind mute not think because nobody has ever told him what to call a thought?

>language doesn't "affect" the way we think, because we cannot even think without language. there are philosophical assumptions in the language you use you will never be able to uncover or change
There is a disconnect here. The concept of thinking without having ever experienced external communication is as far as i know without posting studies not mutually exclusive with bias indented into your language of choice.

I'm trying to figure out
A blind mute still learns language and uses language to think. There is no thinking without language

water is wet

>Reminder that you never invented any words of your own.
good thing I make conlangs and exclusively write within my own invented words and grammar

>PLEEEEASE

yet most people fail to acknowledge the implications of what i said.
>my own invented words and grammar
if the meaning of these words can be understood by anyone using conventional language, then it doesn't count
good post, narcissist.

>if the meaning of these words can be understood by anyone using conventional language, then it doesn't count
good thing a lot of my words have complex homonyms, homophones, and etymologies such that translation into a natural language would prove difficult if not impossible

Then it can't be translated if no context is provided, but you in good faith are still able to translate it to conventional language, the proof of that being that you were raised in conventional language and developed this new language afterwards. unless it really is a shift in consciousness, an innovative psycho-linguistic frame. if this is the case, i would like to hear more about it.

>Reminder that you never invented any words of your own.
Is "inventing a word", and stringing words together creating a meaning, any different though? Each word has a sentence defining it in a dictionary or someshit. Spurious.

Here I invented a word, it's "PRECOPULATE" it's when you copulate before marriage.

Figure out what?

okay, fine, you got me, it's not detailed enough to render its own culture and psychology yet

mendeley.com/catalogue/effects-oil-amphipod-gammarus-oceanicus/

Nope. actually google bought up 105 results

>is "inventing a word", and stringing words together creating a meaning, any different though?
Your thinking implies that we already have all the "building block" words necessary to express any new meaning that could otherwise be denoted by a new word. But every word can be defined by stringing other words together, which in turn can be defined by other words, and this process can go on infinitely. There are no fundamental set of words that can generate every meaning, as far as I know. The words that constitute our vocabulary, and thus the meanings that constitute our subjectivity, are arbitrary, historically contingent, result of a process of dialectic.
How do signifiers (words) and signifieds (concepts) latch on to each other? I am very interested in this question. I think the term for this would be "semiotic capture"

also, almost forgot,
ave ne 4chanxtra, owoty', caw zok cus ustety' lör' möl ksaokre cawr'. üvmozw' cfayn

i thought you were just trying to prove me wrong. interesting

oh, no, I can't prove you wrong because, as I said, it's not complex enough to invoke Sapir Whorf right now. I just wanted to insult you very strongly and leave you without a translation. granted, it's literally gibberish to your eyes, but at least you can appreciate the visual aesthetic

I made up the words shitnickles and fucknuckle and a writer for the Deadpool movies stole them
I don't mind though it's funny listening to Ryan Reynolds say my made up elementary school curse words

Attached: pepe 01.jpg (460x400, 37K)

>If you try invoke a memory or non verbal thought in your mind, there is some intention behind it, and this intention has to be articulated in language in order for you to act on it.
Complete nonsense bucko. Ask a mathematician, or a composer. Do they think in profane language? Of course not, they think their thoughts within the framework of semantic terms which their progenitors have developed over many hundreds of years. If your assertion were true, you could not even retain a mere run-of-the-mill pop music earworm in your mind.

Attached: 1518373161666.jpg (600x705, 74K)

>he hasn't invented any words or at least started a few linguistic memes

Attached: 9C05E7AF-080A-477E-ADD5-3D37471C38E5.jpg (882x960, 79K)

I recognize what your'e saying but general points still hold. there is no relationship to the forms in the mind of a mathematician and the phenomenological reality he experiences, and his thoughts are socially contingent.
For a mathematician or a composer to do their thinking, first they have to know language, develop a subjectivity, know what mathematics or music is, how it relates to other activities and larger social context, have a framework, know mathematicians and musicians that came before him, decide/articulate the intention to engage in their activities, and then immerse themselves in intuitive or creative thinking. Also it seems that mathematics is to some extent contingent on culture, notions of infinity, zero, different numerologies, systems... Same for music, different cultures in specific historical periods had different styles, rhythms, traditions.
Even the most arcane, pre-linguistic, abstract thinking doesn't exist in a vacuum and is contingent on social context.

Go read Piaget's theory of self development, It's more concise and nuanced.

Languages have been made, from scratch, that do not have nouns, only verbs.

let me guess, you're not bilingual. Lay easy on the adderall that shits super damaging to your brain.

If we can't think without language then why does my brain send signals to my muscles to move immediately when I see a predator

I invented a word, it's velatifous. When something is velatifous, it means it is the negative side of it, for example weather, but at that exact moment, for some reason it exhibits it's beauty at all glory.
>That was a velatifious rain yesterday, the sun was shining and the it was pretty hot outside.

I might just be a giga brainlet, but i fail to see how the fact that culture and language are intertwined implies that it is completely impossible to imagine, examine, picture and feel without it.