If you didn't know any words, could you still think?

Answer 1

you would think... yes... maybe bark here and there... but you would think.

Answer 2

Not in any meaningful way. Words and intellect go hand in hand and when children are brought up without words, (by wild animals for example) until about the age of 4 or 5, they are severely retarded both intellectually and verbally. . that is to say they never catch up.
The most convincing explanation for the growth of language/intellect was that it made tribal life more effective both as hunters and gatherers.
Dogs don't think in any meaningful way, they learn react and change behaviour but this not thinking in the sense that we learn to think where we can work out and solve complicated problems.
The nearest observed animal behaviour which can be called thinking exists amongst the higher apes, of which of course we are one.
But it took researchers seven or eight years to teach a chimpanzee some simple sentences; an average human child can hold quite a complex conversation by that age without a huge amount of teaching.

For a full, (and much better) explanation read Stephen Pinker:- The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules and The Blank Slate

Answer 3

If the human mind did not have a language, symbols, words would it think? Probably yes but not as we know it.

Thinking is a continuous train that rarely stops, we are conscious of it happening, we have monologues, which need words and their meanings.

To think is an action, it has purpose a goal a reason and intention.

If you have no name for anything what is the content of your thinking?
Thinking in silence, without the word?

Without the word, the description, the space of the mind that thinks is empty.

Empty in the sense that it is not filled with words.
The nature of that space, where thinking takes place, is of a different quality.

There is direct seeing, then action, direct seeing then action............

So to answer your question no you wouldn't in the usual accepted sense.

Answer 4

You would think in terms of concepts and not words. For instance you know something is bad even though you don't necessarily think in words this is bad. The mental exists before the physical truly exists and the mental holds all the concepts to explain the collective/god to the physical. Words are a physical phenomenon to explain the collective according to the senses. Thus, you would still think, but only through concepts/the beliefs behind the creation of the words.

Answer 5

gardners theory of multiple intelligences suggests just this-
that different intelligence styles think in different ways

thought is conceptual, not verbal-linguistic
the conceptual can be described in a great number of different ways
through picture, emotion, music, mathematics etc.

words are a refined form of thought that occurs last, for example first there is preception and then there is thought and then there is articulation

animals and babies display this well, showing conscious initiative without articulation

if you view an art gallery, you will definitely be thinking, however it may be in an abstract from, a emotional form, a reflective or appreciative form, the same with listening to music

it is unlikely that you will be articulating these thoughts in your mind, so perhaps they will go un-noticed, however they are definitely there otherwise no opinion would be formed
(some people who are very verbal-linguistically oriented may articulate)

another example is movement
this is what gardener called physical-kinesthetic intelligence
when you play sport, move your hand, drive a car etc
there is certainly a thought that preceeds the movement
however again it is not generally articulated

words are a product of thought, thought is not a product of words
this is why we have to learn languages

words are useful however, they allow us the schema to comprehend and use complicated concepts and thoughts that would perhaps be very difficult to understand without words

Answer 6

Yes, you could think. Words are mearly tags given by us to concepts, or thoughts, to allow us to communicate. Think of a chair, when you say the word chair, a generic chair appears to your mind, but the chair you think of could be any species of chair (eg arm, stool, lay-z-boy), and it would still be chair. If the word allowed the thought, rather than the other way around, then surely we would need an infinate number of words to describe every chair we could think of. Also every language has a different word for chair, but the concept is common. So, in short, the word is a secondary characteristic of the thought, and therefore the thought could exist without the word.

Answer 7

Of course you could.

Who said you need a language to think? Many people think in pictures. Just because someone couldn't name what she/he was seeing in his/her thoughts doesn't mean that it suddenly means that he/she ISN'T thinking. It's just a different side of the brain doing most of the work. And, if pictures fail for some reason, emotions can make up thoughts, too.

The only real problem would be communicating the thoughts to other people, really. Other than that, I can't really see a problem. (Even though thinking solely in pictures and emotions won't make you a philosopher or anything like that, at least it's still something.)

Answer 8

Everybody can think without words, and they also do it, perhaps mostly unawares....
In an extreme situation where action is required at a fast pace , allowing no prior planning, it the non verbal thoughts that suggest the sequence of actions... example, a foot ball player, has to decide within himself, 'now I have to kick the ball to left, now pass it, now turn around and return it' and so on... the commentator may not be able to keep pace with all the actions performed by the player, even after getting visuals, where as the player himself has to plan even choices of action available within himself, without words, else, he would miss the ball !

Answer 9

A bilingual person may think in one preferred language but speaks in more than one. The thinking language is usually the mother tongue. There only possibility of not knowing any words is when you are raised in the jungle by apes (or a bird or ants for that matter), then you would grunt (chirp or antspeak) like them, but still think in grunt, chirps or antspeak language. That lead us to the other question. Do apes think? Well Tarzan and George of the Jungle should be anwering this question.

Answer 10

important question this, tackled really well by Orwell in 1984.....the reason that the language 'newspeak' was constantly getting changed, and new words replacing 10 or so old ones was one of the most important facets of the mind control that big brother and the party used to try and curb peoples thinking....and as people know who've read the book, the idea protrayed is that no matter how much they try and control your mind, humanity is still there...so my answer is you would think, it would just be hard to relate these thoughts to others.....how does one describe a colour, or a smell? with words....but babies are still aware of smells and tastes an colours, they just can't relate them to others...i'm rambling, but you get what i mean, i hope!

Answer 11

Yes you would. Words are based on concepts. They form languages to enable us to communicate with each other. If I say 'car' then everyone has an idea of what I am talking about, although the image they have of a car could one of thousands.

We think in images - not words.