Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Stoppelmann]

On a forum, there is a lot of confidence in the expression through words of complicated ideas, whether in science, philosophy or religion, but, although language is a most valuable gift, it is also our biggest weakness.

To quote Whitehead:

‘The difficulty of philosophy is the expression of what is self-evident … Our understanding outruns the ordinary usage of words. Philosophy is akin to poetry.’

Understanding poetry depends heavily on the right hemisphere.

Nothing is less true than that we understand something only when we express it in language. On the contrary, language at times places a barrier between us and understanding, substitutes a crabbed expression for a living reality, and pretends to ‘explain’ it – away. Thought often far outstrips language: it has been a recurrent theme in this book, and I explored much of the evidence in The Master and his Emissary. The philosopher Bryan Magee again hits the nail on the head:

How does one say the Mona Lisa, or Leonardo’s Last Supper? The assumption that everything of significance that can be experienced, or known, or communicated, is capable of being uttered in words would be too preposterous to merit a moment’s entertainment were it not for the fact that it has underlain so much philosophy in the twentieth century…

And he continues in words I have already quoted, ‘direct experience which is never adequately communicable in words is the only knowledge we ever fully have’.

Things that can be understood only by direct experience can be spoken of only indirectly: and conversely what is talked about directly is usually experienced only indirectly, because in the process of articulation it has inevitably become a re-presentation – something other than what we experience. Nietzsche thought that distortion was not just a limitation of language, but of its essence.
And it is true that the more important something is, the harder it is to grasp in language. ‘Most events are unsayable, occur in a space that no word has ever penetrated, and most unsayable of all are works of art’, wrote Rilke, ‘mysterious existences whose life endures alongside ours, which passes away’.

Not just language, but the thinking to which it is allied, has strict limits. Deep intuitions can flourish only when there is enough space granted by not knowing, in the recognition that conventional ‘wisdom’ does not apply. What we take to be ob-vious may prove an ob-stacle; it may ob-trude on, ob-fuscate, ob-struct, ob-scure, and ultimately ob-literate the truth. In fact the meaning of the word ‘obvious’ (Latin, ob- against, + via way) is that which stands ‘in the way’ – in both the good sense, that it is what we first encounter on the highway of our cognition, and the bad sense, that it impedes our path. We must always be alert to precisely what our customary way of thinking leaves out. This is not just true of poetry: ‘If the study of science teaches one anything’, writes Polkinghorne, ‘it is not to take everyday thought as the measure of all that is.’

Language is a tool that was evolved for everyday use. In philosophical thinking of all kinds, according to Whitehead, we wrestle with ‘the difficulty of making language express anything beyond the familiarities of daily life … the struggle of novel thought with the obtuseness of language’: one of the problems of philosophy, according to him, was the ‘uncritical trust in the adequacy of language’, for ‘in philosophy linguistic discussion is a tool’ – it is a useful servant – ‘but should never be a master’.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1848-1850). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

Language is of paramount importance in human relations as it enables communication, understanding, and the exchange of ideas. It's a fundamental tool for expressing thoughts, emotions, and concepts, and it plays a crucial role in building connections and fostering relationships among people. But do we take its limitations and weaknesses into account?

Language can be inherently ambiguous, leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and it seems that only few take the fact that words and phrases sometimes have multiple meanings or connotations into account. As mentioned in the quote above, language may not always capture the full depth and complexity of human emotions, experiences, or ideas. Some concepts may be challenging to express adequately, leading to frustration or inefficiency in communication.

But language is also influenced by cultural, social, and individual perspectives. What one person or culture means by a word or phrase may not align with another person's understanding, leading to cultural or linguistic misunderstandings and false translations. Religionists often fail to realise how their predecessors not only spoke a different language but had huge cultural differences to them.

I also get the feeling that although much of human communication relies on nonverbal cues such as body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions, and the written text may not convey the full intended meaning of a message, in social media we attack each other at the drop of a hat. In some discussions with technical or scientific contexts, participants may lack the precision needed to convey highly specific information. This is why specialized languages, like mathematical notation or scientific jargon, are often used in such fields, which is a problem for lay people to understand.

What do you think?

[Pattern-chaser]

What do you think?

I think I agree with most of what you have posted, to the point where I'm not sure I have anything useful to add.

...

[Edited to add:] Many times, people have said to me, "I'm a visual thinker", or something similar. But I wonder how they know this? I try to think about this, but cannot come to any definite conclusions. I am fairly sure my thinking is not done only in words. I seem to think in patterns, or connected-structures, but I can't really be very sure. I can't disentangle my thinking from thinking about my thinking...

[Stoppelmann]

Many times, people have said to me, "I'm a visual thinker", or something similar. But I wonder how they know this? I try to think about this, but cannot come to any definite conclusions. I am fairly sure my thinking is not done only in words. I seem to think in patterns, or connected-structures, but I can't really be very sure. I can't disentangle my thinking from thinking about my thinking...

I'm sure there are many people who have your ability, but often they are outside of the accepted box. How important it is can be seen in the fact that Einstein used his imagination to come to his theories, which he worked out mathematically afterwards.

Visual Thinking is when you are consciously using and working with a simple visual language (patterns, images, symbols, lines, people, drawings and other elements), which is then combined with written notes. But it is also the ability to consciously use metaphors and storytelling as methods of thinking, which implies an active imagination and use of the visual power of our brain. The conscious use of kinaesthetic and haptic (analogue) methods, like using paper and pen, or templates to visualise what you are thinking about, even if it isn’t formal art, is also visually thinking, and also a means of meditative reflection.

The more we restrict ourselves to written sources in order to understand, the more we employ the left hemisphere, which we can habitually overemploy, and the dogmatism of the church is an example of such a narrow view. That is why the reformation was also wrong when it threw out the works of art and made their churches dull and uninspiring in the interest of precision of meaning. “The Word” is metaphor through and through, and only if we make use of it as in poetry, can it transcend the meaning of the words, and approach the mystery of being.

[Sea Turtle]

What do you think?

It appears to me that many wish to be understood, while at the same time not investing effort to understand another. Probably part of the human condition.


Often the smartest person in the room is afraid to share, as a result everyone looses.

From what you write in the OP, it seems you value understanding. As strange as it sounds, not everyone values understanding.

We have some built in driving forces that have no dependency on understanding others. We might get advantages if we understand others, but that is not a prerequisite for the driving force. Seeking understanding is an fine example of a higher level function, above the driving forces.

Sometimes it doesn't matter. Think about when an enemy attacks and is in the processes of killing you. We must react even without understanding.

In my past, I have done some tasks that could be considered technical. I found that only the persons that REALLY understood could explain in a way that would facilitate understanding. Those that don't know, will talk forever and use much words, while the point is lost or even avoided and none can understand.

Do we take enough time to understand. NO.

[Pattern-chaser]

Many times, people have said to me, "I'm a visual thinker", or something similar. But I wonder how they know this? I try to think about this, but cannot come to any definite conclusions. I am fairly sure my thinking is not done only in words. I seem to think in patterns, or connected-structures, but I can't really be very sure. I can't disentangle my thinking from thinking about my thinking...

I'm sure there are many people who have your ability, but often they are outside of the accepted box. How important it is can be seen in the fact that Einstein used his imagination to come to his theories, which he worked out mathematically afterwards.

Isn't that how most (all?) theories emerge? The benzene ring from musing over an open fire...? Coleridge's "Kubla Khan"? And so on.

Visual Thinking is when you are consciously using and working with a simple visual language (patterns, images, symbols, lines, people, drawings and other elements), which is then combined with written notes. But it is also the ability to consciously use metaphors and storytelling as methods of thinking, which implies an active imagination and use of the visual power of our brain. The conscious use of kinaesthetic and haptic (analogue) methods, like using paper and pen, or templates to visualise what you are thinking about, even if it isn’t formal art, is also visually thinking, and also a means of meditative reflection.

I was being more literal than that when I said I'm not a visual thinker. I can't retain images of stuff anyway, but that is my personal circumstance, not a general observation. I can do many of the things you describe above, very much including heavy use of patterns. My net-name is not a coincidence. Nor is the title of "world renowned autism expert" () Simon Baron-Cohen's latest book, "The pattern-seekers".