Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Canilickyourfeet t1_jah4qoj wrote

I'm curious, was death a direct correlation between chip insertion and time of death? Or is it like Covid reporting, where if someone dies that happens to have the virus, it's deemed a covid death?

If a monkey dies as a result of environmental factors, stress, diet, etc, do they still count it as death brought on by chip insertion?

−5

EZmacilx t1_jah2eor wrote

This is basically the point that I think was one step beyond the one Plato was making in the Phaedrus when Socrates recounts the Egyptian story of writing. Theuth, the god of writing, touts the benefits of writing as a superior means of communicating ideas, but Thamus gives a few faults that writing has as a means of communication, one of which being that a reader can only infer what the meaning of the words might be based on what they understand those words to represent, which may differ from the meaning that the writer intended. This is true of the spoken word as well, although in the case of conversation, you have the benefit of being able to ask for clarification unlike the usual case with writing

2

BE3F t1_jagsney wrote

I started noticing my internal monologue changing to English within a year and now, 20 years on, it’s almost permanently in English unless I visit my home country in which case it starts changing back slowly and I pick up my accent again, I usually visit for a week at most.

This doesn’t apply when doing maths, counting especially always reverts back to my native language!

5

Yessbutno t1_jags4kz wrote

> I would say they are more “visual” than verbal in nature, and therefore I often say I think more visually than verbally

I am the same way, for me it's that thoughts feel multidimensional in terms of structure as well as temporal ordering, while language/verbal communication is often linear and ordered in particular ways. So much is lost trying to put thoughts into words I often don't bother unless I have to.

Whereas visual languages feel more naturalistic.

7

garfield629 t1_jagqy8c wrote

I often feel frustrated that I can't seem to put my thoughts into the words that I would like to. Can anyone relate to that?

And this has me thinking about why small talk irritates me. I guess I understand that an exchange of words can have the purpose of just being friendly and building community, but words just for the sake of words can be kind of a bummer.

10

Hazzman t1_jagn18t wrote

It reminds me of how some languages have words for emotions, concepts or scenarios that other languages don't have, but are emotions people can experience - just without the words to express them succinctly or even at all. Like Schadenfreude. We know what that means - and it is precise in its expression. Without that word, an English speaking person would have to deliberately express "Their failure, pain and or harm is satisfying to me" which is cumbersome.

But what about emotions we can feel that we don't have words for in any language. I'm sure there are many of these across different languages that aren't present in English but that we would understand if presented with them.

I also think of 1984's 'Newspeak' where the dictatorship of the future controls people's thoughts by eroding their language. Until the concept of revolution or rebellion no longer has a word or a phrase to describe it, and therefor doesn't exist as a possibility for the people.

7

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_jaghh5c wrote

This was a great read. Beeing bilingual, I have often been asked by my friends if I think in english or my native language. I allways found it an odd question, because my thoughts are definitely not happening in word-format inside my head - If I had to describe them, I would say they are more “visual” than verbal in nature, and therefore I often say I think more visually than verbally - but this is not a fully accurate description either.

Thoughts are a unique experience and part of your conscious existence and that is an experience infinitely richer than words can convey. Of course, the broader your vocabulary, the greater the chance that you will be able to “translate” your thoughts to words at high fidelity - but much is “lost in translation” when two people speak - even if they are both fluent in a language and competent speakers.

34

DocHickory t1_jagbkc3 wrote

Language is imprecise in that each person weighs what a word means differently, so it is impossible that one person understands exactly what another wishes to convey. Usually 'close enough' will serve, but it is in the nuances between individuals where the train of communications jumps the rails.

91

gashmol t1_jag3zv6 wrote

Speaking is, like many of our functions, mostly authomatic. You don't need or want to consciously think about it all the time. Often you make mistakes but then you can use a conscious effort to fix those mistakes. Alot of times you don't even have to fix the mistakes since they are obvious or minor. I usually just lough it off when I open the fridge instead of the closet. I'm happy with this evulationary tradeoff.

13