Does language limit our thoughts?

Answer 1

Limit is the wrong word. It implies that there is a barrier beyond which you cannot go. And this has NEVER been demonstrated, except perhaps in cases of brain damage.

On the other hand, it is almost indisputable that language AFFECTS our thoughts in an economic way - depending on language some thoughts are easier and some more difficult. This kind of effect has been shown again and again.

There is no concept that exists in one language that is IMPOSSIBLE to express in another. It may be that it takes several pages of explanation instead of just one word. But with enough effort, any thought is possible.

Answer 2

I suspect so. The thought of the Pirahan people is being investigated even as I type. It is thought among some linguists that the Pirahan, whose language does not include any general terms, do not and cannot think abstractly.

If that be shown, the thesis that 'language limits our thought' is corroborated, if not fully proven.

However, I'm also a poet, who sometimes has thoughts that present English language does not serve well. I invent supplementary English language to serve those unruly thoughts. This personal history puts me in double or triple mind on the matter of thought, language, and the Pirahan.

Answer 3

Yes, but then again, we work with many restrictions in our lives and for some it is the aim of said life over come such obstacles and transcend into a higher state of thought and understanding. Language is a broad reaching term used to describe a way in which an individual may communicate with another. It restricts us through our use and subsequent need of it to describe thought. Without the ability to communicate our thoughts to those around us, be it through sign language or by some other means, the thoughts becomes useless, nothing more than ideas that sit in your head and never get utilised. Even art to an extent is a form of communication, a way in which to express an idea or thought... but art and its realm are best left for another time. The point I am moving towards is that all forms of taking an idea and making it real are forms of communication... stretching the concept to its limits, they are a language in themselves. It is not this that restricts us though. It is only a symptom of a larger problem... Human Experience. When was the last time you ever experienced or have heard of an idea that was nothing more than a compilation of things you have experienced or have witnessed through others? It is now a widely known concept that there is no originality left in many of the creative endeavors we undertake, sad and perhaps not entirely true of all art forms, but in the least a growing problem. Example: A Standard Dragon. Experience Compilation: Head of a Reptile (Take your pick) Tongue of a Snake. Body of a Reptile (Take your pick) Wings of a Bat Tail of a Serpent or Beast Legs of a Lion Talons of an Eagle This is a basic outline of what exactly I am referring to, if you were wanting to create an image of a dragon or a beast like it and had no one elses previous artwork to duplicate, this is how you would form one. Indeed, this is how we form many of the everyday ideas we have. Try it. Think as hard as you can of an original idea in any way shape or form that is not tainted , or made up of, in some way by what you have experienced or been told exists. If you can do that and prove it has not been done before in totality or part, you have stumbled upon originality. Be careful though, it is truly mind boggling how deep this goes... A mirror: reflections in the water. A Broom Stick: A large stick with a branch on the end... refined. Your Cellphone: Nothing more than a Telephone, MP3 player and whatever else is in there... refined using basic ideas that were found based upon previous basic ideas and so on and so on. We restrict what we see, hear and experience according to what has come before. Even a child creates its world through what it experiences and knows no more unless told so by someone they trust, or who has more authority then they do. It is theorised that should a truly original event occur (even in our minds), we would be unable to experience it unless it were forced upon us and repeatedly thought upon until accepted and even then, our mind may simply reject it. So... does language limit our thoughts? Yes, but only by our own dictation, we, through experience are the limiters of our own reality. The real question is this... Can we as individuals ever hope to over come this, the most basic and all encompassing road block to our evolution?.. Perhaps so... Perhaps, it has already been done. Only personal experience shall reveal the answer.

Answer 4

No.
Language limits our expression and communication of our thoughts.

Answer 5

I'm not certain if language itself, as in knowing just one language rather than several, can limit your thinking. Certainly the more exposure you have to different cultures would widen your life experience. But having a a limited vocabulary would definitely limit your thoughts. The greater variety with which you can express yourself the better thinking you are capable of.

Answer 6

Only if we want to communicate every thought as there aren't
enough words in the world in any language to account for
the nuances in the human thought processes. Nothing
limits our thoughts.

Answer 7

I don't think language limits our thoughts so much as it limits our ability to express them.

Answer 8

no, our thoughts limit our languages, thus the inability of not knowing more than just 2-3 languages, if any.
if we weren't thinking that we have a native language, maybe we could easily expand the limits for adopting many other languages, thinking them in their language and not translating.

Answer 9

does your thoughts limit your language?

Answer 10

It both COMPLETELY limits our thoughts--Wittgenstien said, "If I spoke a different language, I would see a different world"--AND ABSOLUTELY does NOT limit our thoughts.

Now, simply reflect on whether the above opens my thought or closes it, and THAT is your answer to your question.

PS--How would we know a limit, if the only means for constructing such a limit is THROUGH language? Are you comfortable with measuring the limit of something ONLY through that given something?

Addendum: Obviously, two people (given the two thumbs down I currently have) have not read either Derrida or Deleuze.