"It's Only Words...

...but words are all I have to take your heart away."  So goes the Bee Gees song.  But is language really all we have?  In the 20th century a number of thinkers considered that language was the only thing that separated humanity from the animals.  However, since that time we have taught apes sign language.  And we have studied the natural language of many animals, including prairie dogs (Really, prairie dogs? Yep. Just check this out).

But whether animals have language or not, the question remains: is language what makes us think?  If we didn't have language, would we be able to communicate?  Could we warn, "A flood is coming" if we didn't have words?

Certainly Stan Brakhage doesn't think so.  He created many abstract shorts in order to communicate without language, or without normal narrative.

Of course, the question remains as to whether Stan communicates anything.

But we don't have to go as far as abstract to reach for communication without words.  We don't need words to understand this film by Buster Keaton:

On the other hand, we can say that to take language away from a world built with language is disingenuous. Without language, there couldn't be a police force, nor need for a fence, nor buildings to run around-- let alone movie cameras or actors.  To make that world built on language and make it silent doesn't mean that language isn't involved.

A recent film, Tree of Life, uses many metaphorical images to communicate it's theme of Grace and Nature. But without understanding the ideas of Grace and Nature (and perhaps having those specific terms defined for us) the visual metaphors don't make any sense.

Perhaps without language our society wouldn't be as complex as it is.  But without language can we really say that we have no thought at all?  Or is language only necessary for communication?  Is there really thought without communicating with others?  Just because most of our thoughts are derived from the internet, does that mean that there is not thought without the internet?  Given the fact that we live in a world filled with language, can we even answer this question?

Or is language just one tool of communication?  Are pictures really the same as language?  But don't they still communicate?  Without any language, without ever having language, doesn't this picture communicate something?:

And what about people who don't share the same language?  Can't they communicate with each other without understanding a single comprehensible word?  What about non-verbal communication, some of which is universal?  A smile always means the same thing, although there are a variety of smiles.  Again, this isn't as complex as language can give, but isn't it communication?

One last thing:  Do words communicate more than we know?  Our word for "compassion" comes from the Latin, but because of the inclusion of the word "passion" communicates strong feeling, not objectivity, although the word doesn't necessarily communicate a concept that includes deep feeling.  Wouldn't we get a different meaning from the Greek word for "compassion", splakchna?  It comes from a Greek word which originally meant "bowels".  It also implies a deep feeling, but perhaps a different kind of deep feeling?

Just how deeply does language effect our thinking?  Do English-only speakers think differently than Chinese-only thinkers, simply because different languages are involved?  If so, how could they communicate, even with a translator?  Wouldn't that mean that an interpreter would have to be more than a translator of words, but of culture and of values-- the meaning of the terms in a different mindset, not just a one-for-one meaning?

The Future of Philosophy: Neuroscience

Many new discoveries have occured due to advances in neuroscince.  Many items we have connected to a "soul" or a "mind" we have found places for in the ever-expanding brain. We found that the brain is much more complicated than we ever imagined, and our interpretations determine the reality around us.  There is no color, except in our brain, no sound except in our brain.  What does this mean for who we are and what is the place of interpretation in connection to reality? 

What is the center of self? Is the self completely embodied? If the self is completely embodied, then is the mind dependent on the well-being of the body?  Are all decisions embodied decisions?  Can decisions not be trusted if the body cannot be trusted? 

If the self is embodied, does it mean that the soul does not exist?  Can there be a soul without a body, a self without a body? 

Can a self be transfered to a different kind of body, such as digital, and it still be the same self? If changes are made in the body-- such as brain surgery-- does the same self exist, or is that self destroyed? If so, is that tantamount to murder? As a body grows and goes through major changes (for example, hormone shifts) does that self still exist?  Is our current self responsible for what a past self does, if that self changes?

Is the self only a similar set of memories?  But memories have been shown to be re-created by the brain... can memories be depended upon at all?  Is our self only reacting to a contextual fiction that we have created with others?  Does it matter what fiction we choose to live in? What is the best fictional narrative to exist in?  Is our contextual narrative dependent on our embodiment?