Is a thought truly a thought if it cannot be put into words?
If one’s thought cannot be described in words is it a complete thought? There is much variance with the range of vocabulary people have. Once new words are learned our conversations can be more specific. Do thoughts, then, become more specific?
@fadingfootprints, i believe that thoughts are representations/reflections of nature, the expansion of the vocabulary is the blooming of intellectual life and the expansion of perspective.
thoughts are painting with symbols, as you expand your vocabulary you expand the spectrum of colours that you use to paint/reproduce the unspeakable beauty of experience.
@seeker, basically the second response makes part of the point I was going to, which is to say that language, if it doesn’t hinder thought, acts as a narrow scope through which to translate actual knowledge to someone else. Language is not a lossless system, in terms of withholding the full potency of the thoughts we have and the experiences we are exposed to, but it is the best we can do currently yo convey those complex activities to others.
And a final note: it is thought that validates language rather than language that validates thought.
Well, if you learn how emotions and thoughts are related, you just might learn about expression, but you’re gonna need practice. You can count how many words can be said to you without triggering an emotion. I’d be interested if I was designing a robot, but if was, the expression of a robot is going to be designed for the future emotions of a human being.
What you put into words is the way you expect to be perceived. Your vocabulary won’t be enough.
Thought became before language, so yes.
Quite frankly, I believe a thought you can’t define is more pure than one you can. It’s not better understood nor is it more clear or even logical, but to me, there is nothing more wonderful than not being able to describe a thought or feeling.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.