"All of the other Ways of Knowing are controlled by language." What does this statement mean and do you think it is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language.

TOK ESSAY

Johan Oxenstierna

Candidate Number: 000198032

08/02/2005

Word count: 1595

A knower can be defined as a rational, language-using animal. The knower’s rationality most certainly emerges from the different ways of knowing and should, according to the above definition be associated with language. To understand this connection is key in this essay but sorrowfully there are many different points of view on the matter. One argument agrees with the essay title because language, it is believed, must be used for the other ways of knowing to be expressed, taught and learnt. But then the question arises: Cannot emotion, perception and reason evolve internally, from inside a rational animal without external affection? This topic has been greatly discussed but there has been no real winner to the debate because of the uncertainties and limitations our present psychological studies contain.

Darwin's theory of evaluation quite clearly breaks the scientific routines of the past where emotion, perception and reason had a significant role. The animals direct relation to reality seems more convincing to a knower than the more theoretical proposals of religion. But should this seems above be considered valid enough? We still cannot have anything more than an idea of how humans developed into what they are today. Even the different areas of knowledge and the ways of knowing do not make the question easier; we will always live with this improbability of what fits into knowledge and what does not.

We usually refer to the change from primitive to advanced as the actualisation process: From X; the creature of desire that follows the pleasure pain principle to Y; the knower. One acknowledged difference between x and y is language. Apes, for example, do not posses a structured language with subject-predicate because they lack certain physiological conditions. The question becomes more difficult when we ask ourselves whether X:s can think. Many philosophers have connected thought with the availability of language: The more language available, the more thought. For example we can think about something, for example one's home, without using words. However, in order to think something about something; to form concepts, language might have to be used because a concept can be defined as the rule for the use of the word. If this is true, one can say that language expresses thought as a function. This is a very strong argument for that language controls all the other ways of knowing because if one needs language to think, then one can argue that neither emotion, perception nor reason can exist without language because the only way we can apply them is by thinking.

But one can always argue whether thought has anything to do with the ways of knowing in the fist place. Emotion, perception and reason do not necessarily need thoughts or words to be experienced. Nevertheless, if thought and language arise from very deep grounds in the knower’s mind; that they are a consequence of the laws of functioning of consciousness, they might actually occur before the other ways of knowing: “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.”

But it can also be assumed that concepts ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

But it can also be assumed that concepts are prior to language which can be supported by that concepts direct the combination of experiences. For example the concept of Pegasus combines wings and horses and this can be established without language. This implies on a more "self developing" rationality but according to Kant knowledge is initially acquired from experience gained in the external world which is then processed by thought and language. It would, of course, be very helpful to know whether language or thought comes first but unfortunately there is no justified answer to that yet.

Language has a wide range of functions both in natural sciences and psychology. Some see mathematics as a language since it can combine concepts in the same way that words can. One certain thing is that we must be able to think something about something in order to do mathematics (advanced at least); hence language is required for it. Language is needed in the same ways for the other areas of knowledge: History needs language to be learnt: “Without words, without writing and without books there would be no history, there could be no concept of humanity”. Ethics requires language in a similar way: For example many young people become criminals if not taught (using language) what is right and wrong. Language is less important in arts and music, because these topics materialize on more basic mental activities, such as the pleasure pain principle.

In this essay, the language function of communication is probably more relevant than the functions stated above. Clearly, in order to perceive anything, including knowledge, from someone or something, we need some sort of communication. But the question is then whether we need to learn it from something else at all: The "learning how to ride a bike" knowledge, for example does not require language. Furthermore, a boy can perceive a teddy-bear like cloud visually whilst unable to combine the image with the word “teddy-bear”: Just as much as if you might not know appropriate words to describe your painful stomach to the doctor, yet you perceive the very pain to which you are exposed.

Yet, the words “teddy-bear” and “pain” can only be officially defined and understood by others by language, although it contains its limitations. Emotion can be similarly portrayed. The emotion of love, for example, cannot be thoroughly defined through language, although language might be used to express it. If this is true, one could easily argue that emotion acts prior to language, and the same can be applied to perception and reason. Reason could be seen as being closer to language than emotion because emotions are sometimes basis for irrational thoughts. Language is used to rationalise these thoughts, with the aid of reason. At the same time, I believe that thought cannot be entirely controlled by reason and emotions simultaneously, which could be strengthened by an example: A mother is given the choice of either letting her son or the man who knows the cure for aids, live. The latter decision would be the most rational one (at least according to the utilitarian theory that more people will end up living), whereas the decision to let her son live would probably emerge from intense personal emotions. In neither case emotion nor reason strictly controls the situation, but they are certainly interacting to produce the final answer, which is to be expressed by language of course.

Language has always been seen as something central to knowledge, but this might have its disadvantages, too. It has become such a big part of human activity that it is easily taken for granted. We use it all the time and everywhere without even thinking about it and it has sort of grown into the mind and settled there. Without even being aware of it language might have just as a negative impact on mind as imagination. There are two theories of the function of language. One is that the task of language is to represent the world as it is: The Truth Function. The other theory is that language has a Communication Function. The latter theory is supported by Wittgenstein, who stated that "language's usage might not be truth functional". Einstein also stated that language is a dangerous source of error and deception because of the way it affects reasoning. When humans develop and become independent from the background of impressions a greater inner coherence is achieved and language becomes an instrument of reasoning. This development might lead to a belief in a mistaken reality. If language indeed has nothing to do with reality, is it not then much less worth than the other ways of knowing which we are completely certain of? As language fulfils so many functions it can be considered different, though, from the other ways of knowing, and is therefore incomparable to them.

If one believes in the truth function then one probably also believes in that language does control the other ways of knowing. As truth can be defined as words organised by the laws of the mind being related to reality language is an essential part here. But this only concerns those who believe in the first theory.

Whether "All the other ways of knowing are controlled by language is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language" is, as I have explained in this essay, more or less impossible to answer. Language can be argued more important than the other ways of knowing because of its wide range of functions and because the other ways of knowing, to some extent, are dependent on language in order to be expressed, taught and learnt. Also, if combinations of concepts occurs in the other ways of knowing, language is more likely to be used. But to straightforwardly say that language controls them is a bit too frank, it is clear that at least some of the other ways of knowing are developed independently. How much is very theoretical today, but future research might give us the empirical knowledge we need to find out the true relationship between language, emotion, perception and reason.

Listed Sources:

-, 07/02/2005