Philosophy Now Forum

Mike Strand wrote:Good topic, Wootah!

This may help the discussion along: I think the Eskimos have many different concepts, and words, for "snow", to describe the different types of snow. I've seen a fair amount of snow and have described it in a few various ways; e.g., (1) heavy, sticky and wet, and (2) dry, light, powdery. But apparently some Eskimo peoples have a lot larger vocabulary, and even separate nouns, for many varieties of snow.

This may suggest that we can see or experience things, and even different types of a thing, and deal with or interact with these things and their variations, before making up words for them.

Yes, I would say all of that snow is bound to catch your attention from time to time. Perhaps your example says that attention determines our most important experiences. This also leaves open the possibility of experiencing the world from different points of view. In this case language being refined to compensate for the dominant perspective.

And native American witnessing a large ship from Europe in 1490, would not have a name for such a thing, so would not see a 'ship'. But they would see a lot of other things they recognise such as wood and hemp rope and people.

chaz wyman wrote:And native American witnessing a large ship from Europe in 1490, would not have a name for such a thing, so would not see a 'ship'. But they would see a lot of other things they recognise such as wood and hemp rope and people.

Hello Chaz,

Yes, I have heard that before. Can you give me a reference as to where it came from please?

If this is true then we could say they are perceiving the ship, it is just they are incapable of to attending to it.

Is language a codified representation of mental abstractions?
Is it similar to a painting that tries to represent the real by imitating it?
Is it a more abstract form?

If so, what are these representations it refers to?
Are they generalizations and simplifications of reality; ones based upon eliminating all extraneous stimuli, all dimensions which man cannot make sense of, so as to form a conceptual boundary around a phenomenon, dissect it, simplify it, finds patters or repetitive predictability within it, so as to make it comprehensible?

Could this be why language, when taken literally, leads the mind to conceptual paradoxes?
Is it because language is a representation of a human artifice, a static absolute form, upon a fluid, dynamic reality where the problem arises between the ideal and the real?

Language, like all art-forms, is metaphorical.
That simpler minds are taken by its displays, as it is by movie depictions, and is convinced of its literal relevance, is what makes the myriads of morons such easy prey to those that know better.