• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does Knowledge require Language?

slimvictor said:
While this may be traditional within philosophy (I know very little about the field of philosophy per se), it seems silly to me.
To distinguish taste from knowledge?
On what basis?
Can you ever have a feeling or sensation that is not knowledge, and doesn't lead to knowledge?
Can I burn my finger in a fire, and have a sensation of pain and burning, and be aware of the sensation, but have no knowledge of the sensation? I have trouble accepting this.
Can I take a sip of tea, and get a sensation, but still have no knowledge of tea, or of the taste of tea? Hard to believe.

The way to build up knowledge is through experience, right?
Experience (nearly?) always involves sensation and awareness.

Any definition of "knowledge" that doesn't include sensations or awareness seems very limited to me.
Sounds to me like the categories that are assumed/hypothesized will lead to a very biased interpretation of the data.

Also, the way to buil up knowledge is not simply to be a sensing machine, but rather to be imbued with the categories of perception, consciousness, in addition I might add to a priori truths a part of how knowledge is attained.
Click to expand...

I think what Jamshyd is trying to say here is that the sensation itself is not knowledge, but merely qualia, it is our minds that then act upon this qualia to categorise it as knowledge. Finger in fire>hot etc

A clear example would be think of episteme as the sense-experience of a noumenal qualia. Let us say, hitting a rock.

Now a rock, hitting a rock might for all we know sense the qualia of that event, but sans-mind can make no further of it.

It is the human mind where the senses are brought together, and through categories are transformed into experiential knowledge.

I hope that clarifies things for you, if not, repost and I'll try another tack.

I would also add (as an Idealist) that epistemology is not soley made up of empirical data, but also requires 'a priori' truths.
 
Last edited:
language is the representation, interpretation and communication of knowledge through spoken symbols. even if no person were capable of speaking wouldn't the laws of gravity, nature, and everything else still exist?

however it also seems plausible that at the level of quasi-knowledge(superfluous information exchanges)there is a symbiotic relationship between language and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
^^

Okay, then, returning to the OP's question in this thread.

Does Knowledge require language?:)
 
No it doesn't.

Knowledge of how to walk, knowledge that no food will = death, knowledge of the seasons, knowledge of night and day, knowledge of gravity.. the basics of these things do not require language to have some knowledge of them.. simple observation / instinct.
 
Good, its good to clarify one's position else the OPs original question get lost. I am in agreement with both of you.
 
in fact, I believe that language debases and distorts the inherent truistic nature of knowledge, especially once it is transmitted.
 
^^these are mostly instinctual - or obvious at the end of the day -
observations which need no defining, just acknowledgment.

... this was covered at the beginning, of the thread;-)
 
Last edited:
panic in paradise said:
^^these are mostly instinctual - or obvious at the end of the day -
observations which need no defining, just acknowledgment.

... this was covered at the beginning, of the thread;-)
Click to expand...

maybe some people cant even breathe without language while others are perfectly fine without it.On the super high dose trips I experienced some sort of ultimate knowledge but at the same time I didnt even know what language means so I already know witch of those two groups I am member off
 
I think the answer to the OP is a resounding yes. Knowledge absolutely requires language, but language is more than merely human-made constructs of symbols and relations that allow us to describe the world around us and within us. "Knowledge," IMO, is simply a discrete manifestation of a certain relationship of words and syntax, patterns that are recognizable. It's the recognition of these patterns that most people consider knowledge.
Obviously every little bit of language is open to interpretation, and it can differ in meaning greatly between any two individuals, but there is some arbitrary consensus that turns a jumble of phrases and syntactical into a concrete "meaning," and it's what allows communication to happen on the most basic level, or on any level, really.

Language is the interconnection any two objects might share. Language can be purely aesthetic in nature, or purely functional as well. There's all sorts of different languages, and word-based ones are just one type.
The language of the electrons bouncing off each other and creating the "normal force" is one of the oldest languages of all time. It's the language of "separate bodies," and it's totally arbitrary that it works the way it does, but that's language for you. Time is itself a language, arbitrary in nature, yet there it is, or so it seems.

Our brains can operate in languages of which we aren't even entirely conscious. People are asking if knowing how to walk requires knowledge, I'd say it does, but not in the sense that one person needs to read an instruction manual of how to walk, but more like the brain undergoes it's own process of logical reasoning that can take place in a split second that allows it to communicate with the nerves and muscles and everything organic and inorganic that goes into taking a single step. The flashes and pulses of energy along our nervous system is a language that can be translated and understood. Nothing mystical about it, it's a software that we were born with. That's what a lot of the instincts of any animal are when it comes down to it. The languages that allow these processes have probably developed in much the same way as any human language, through diffusion and necessity.

TLDR: Language is a far broader thing than most people give credit for, and knowledge is simply a manifestation of some arbitrary organization of language.
That's my idea on the matter anyway.
 
well i cant spell well because i have an accent because thats how i was raised. does that make me less capable/intellegent

you dont need anyone to make relations to your environment and how you feel about it.
 
purple_cloud said:
This is a good place to bring up Sassure and the notion of the linguistic "sign" I think. Basically every language is made up of "signs" and each has two sides, the "signifier" which is the sequence of letters/sounds in a word and the "signified" which is what thing we visualize mentally when we hear/read the signifier. The relationship between them is arbitrary, and speakers of the same language basically just agree on them to communicate. Semantics isn't so much my linguistic thing, but I bring this up when people ask that question usually. But, that basically answers the question, or provides an answer to the question.
Click to expand...

While Saussure is fascinating in making this observation; it's the thinkers that come after Saussure that offer more. While your description of semiotics is basically correct, you've left out the most important part - that of the referent: A sign is made up of a signifier and a signified, but the signified "refers" to a "thing" or a referent. This is important when it comes to homonyms such as bank (I'm going to the bank to withdraw some cash) and bank (let's go sit on that grassy bank over there), as it draws attention away from single words, and places the focus upon groups of words or sign system.

According to Saussure (and other structuralists) signs are "arbitrary", as in a signified and a signifier will always appear together, and in this way meaning is made - a structuralist would say that words (signs) always refer to a "thing", and so there is a body of meaning that is structured or organised into being through language.

The post-structuralists, like Derrida, play on this notion of sign systems in order to demonstrate that the sign is anything but arbitrary due to the manner in which it has to differ from other signs so that we can deduce a meaning (like my bank example above). So in this respect, words only "mean" what they mean depending on what they are not (the other words/signs they appear with in any system/linguistic structure).

The gnosis distinction is an interesting one, and I would also agree with what was suggested of this. So perhaps the question comes down to awareness (direct non-communicable experience) and knowledge (our system/attempt to communicate this awareness), which by function (if we follow Derrida - see Différance) is always one step away from the truth.

CoffeeDrinker said:
Language is a far broader thing than most people give credit for, and knowledge is simply a manifestation of some arbitrary organization of language.
Click to expand...

I would say an attempt at organisation ;)
 
If you can explain Semiotics to the community you certainly belong here. Semiotics has never been my bag being an esotericist - people like Eco have little time for esoteric thought or history.:\
 
One can 'know' in mental pictures, it seems to me. For example, I decide I need to go to the store, and a mental picture comes up of the store, along with associations enabling me to get there. This is certainly knowledge, is it not? And it doesn't seem to require language.

The mind thinks in both mental pictures (including, perhaps, vague 'emotional mental pictures') and words. Reality, actuality, is not thinking, but direct experiencing. One experiences thoughts, one experiences emotions, one experiences perception. This, to me, is reality. "Thought's content" is plausible story-line, useful blueprint aiding one in getting to the store.

The psyche, e.g. "I miss you so much... I need you" and "I hate you! You're such a piece of sh*t" is the result of taking story-line to be meaningful actuality, and investing in it. The solution is nonattachment, letting go, disentanglement, forgetting.

Peace...
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
I think the answer to the OP is a resounding yes. .
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. From my own perspective, and others in this thread the answer is a (perhaps not resounding) 'NO'

I think your post merely begs the question.

i.e. If we make every 'type' of knowledge, a 'type' of language, then one can conclude that Knowledge requires language.

I don't think the OP's use of the word 'language' is as broad as you would allow it to be. But then that is perhaps a question for the OP?

FIAT LUX
 
Pythagoras said:
I beg to differ. From my own perspective, and others in this thread the answer is a (perhaps not resounding) 'NO'

I think your post merely begs the question.
Click to expand...
And there's the crux of the matter.

If we got the answers, there wouldn't be anything left to beg the question -- and begging the question is the mind/psyche's modus operandi and sole reason for existing (well that, and dodging incoming answers in the way of missiles ;)).

If everything keeps begging the question, your mind/psyche controls you and you are its slave, dancing on puppet strings. If not, you are not bound, albeit not free by any mental/conceptual formulation of freedom. Thank God for that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top