Parricide: On Irad Kimhi's "Thinking and Being"
The difference between the thought “Antarctica is frozen” and the thought “Antarctica is not frozen” is thus not a difference in what is said by each (both sentences are about Antarctica being frozen), but reflects a difference in the exercise of our capacity to think of Antarctica being frozen. Both thoughts involve only Antarctica and its icy sta
... See morethepointmag.com • Parricide: On Irad Kimhi's "Thinking and Being"
I think I agree with this so far.
The role of language here is therefore absolutely crucial. Our linguistic capacity is not something that is merely expressive of thought, but is constitutive of our ability to think at all. It is only by means of our ability to recognize signs as repeatable that we are able to think negation, or think of how things are not, combine thoughts, or thi
... See morethepointmag.com • Parricide: On Irad Kimhi's "Thinking and Being"
This entails that language is innate, that linguistic relations are somehow genetic, or that emotive relations either 1. reduce to language or 2. aren't thought. That doesn't seem right. Just as I relate to the joy of some statistical co-occurrence that relates some thing with pleasure, so to does my dog, or a bird. Are we denying that as a thought? If so, then is thought just linguistic relations?