" All 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?

However it happens that our language cannot control our perception.  If we consider Ludwig Wittgenstein statement that  "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for”, then not all the things we perceive can be described through a language.  For example, I am in front of a beautiful landscape.   I might not have the terms or words to describe it, but the fact is here, I can still see the landscape and appreciate its beauty.  

In the above statement it affirms that emotions are controlled by language.  Emotions are feelings that an individual can actually feel things experienced.  Emotions can be fear, anger, love empathy, sadness, grief and anxiety and so on.  To express an emotion we usually communicate it through words. Let’s assume that I am in love and to express my love to my beloved one I can express it verbally;  “ I love you”.  But the power of the language is not adequate, as it can’t convey the intensity of my emotions.  I can only understand my love. Although a language has power to express emotions, the emotion goes far beyond the reach of language.  But perhaps some languages do this better than others and this is a limitation as it is sometime out of our reach.  I think that Italian would be a good language as it appears very romantic to me.

However poets and dramatist has the ability to portray emotions brilliantly through language by using figures of speech and rhythms to strengthen their sentiment.  For instance Keats has the ability to express his emotions of his desperate love affairs through his poetry. In some of Keats odes we feel that he is trying to express his desperate feeling of love and he convey these emotions wonderfully through an intense language. So we can say that language has some power over our emotions and again we can see that language is an important mean of expression especially when it comes to feelings.

But not every person, in life can be a great poet or playwrights like Keats or Shakespeare.  There must be other means of conveying our emotions.  In TOK class we’ve learnt that art is a mean of expressing our emotion.  “ A work of art is the artist’s way of achieving his self-expression, particularly the expression of feelings.” This is a typical view of art.  And we have an excellent illustration of the expression an artist in Guernica, where Picasso demonstrate his feelings and emotions about the Spanish civil war in his painting.  Some emotions can also be conveyed through music.  For example the famous composer Mozart conveyed his unhappy life through music.  He showed his frustration of his life through his music.  But not everyone are born artist, but they can still some convey their emotions through music, paintings and sculptures.  For example, when a depressed person can express his/her feelings through hard rock music.  These are obviously ways of knowing for some people in certain situations, which are not dependant on a language.  These include the other means of expressing our emotions.   For example, “ I am really angry”; will I have a happy expression on my face?  Facial expression also determines our emotion.  An emotion is a strong feeling and each individual react differently some uses body language and other facial expressions.   For instance, when I face a discomfit moment I flush and turn as red as a potato.  So if we think well there are definitely other means of expression apart language itself we it comes to emotions.

The next way of knowing is logic or reason. There are two types of reasoning inductive and deductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning is based “on potentialities not realities.   This type of reasoning relies a lot on experiences.  For example, if everyone finds that a Maths class is boring; therefore I will get bored in maths class. Such generalizations are being made when we use inductive reasoning and this involves the use of a language.  However, the use of language in inductive logic is affected by our perception and culture but also when two languages are translated.  For example, in Hopi language the word ‘masa’ytaka, means flying, but this includes everything which flies that is helicopters, mosquitoes and birds. Now if an American Indian literally translate,  ‘All mosquitoes are parasites, from English to Hopi language, then he will imply that birds and helicopters too are parasites if he uses inductive reasoning.  This example shows us one limitation of differing language.  But sometimes there are also cultural gaps, such as religion and ethnic group, which affects our inductive reasoning. For example, all Hindus do not eat pork; it does not mean that every Hindus follow this rule.  It is just a generalization made because of the religion.  As we’ve seen, a language is very important to analyse the outcome in inductive reasoning.

Conversely, deductive reasoning relies less on a language as it is in algebraic, mathematical and symbolic form.  Therefore this removes the ambiguities that a language possesses, as it does not rely on experiences, cultures and perception.  For example if we are factorising 4x-2= 6, we do rely much on language everything is about logical thinking.  The language of mathematics is less ambiguous as when we use inductive reasoning.

The four ways of knowing that I’ve analysed uses a language but to say that a language controls is a bit exaggerate.  It is true that some ways of knowing are controlled and relies a lot on a language, but there are others means, which are not dependant on language.  I think it depends a lot on the individual, as some might rely more on a language while they perceive, think and feel an emotion and others might not. Recently I asked the class if they could imagine a world without a language and this was their response “ We would not be here if a language did not exist.” I personally think that a language is essential, even if it has its limitation and that we human beings have to accept it the way it is, as it is already part of our lives and controlling our mind, gestures and all actions.  

                

                                                 

 

 

Bibliography: -

              Books : -

• Micheal Woolman, Ways of knowing. Australia: IBID press Victoria: 2000.
• Allott, R. The great mosaic Eye: Language and Evolution Chapter I. Book Guild: 2001. (Notes from Mr Muddle).
• Della Thompson. The concise Oxford Dictionary. New York, Oxford university press: 1995.
• Horner and Westacott. Thinking through philosophy. UK, Cambridge university press: 2001- philosophy of art: page 197.

       

      Internet: - Accessed dates (06/05/04 and 09/07/04)

-  The American Heritage® Dictionary’. Language: http://www.bartleby.com/61/14/L0041400.html.

       

 -  The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Edward Sapir, Notion of Codability and Linguistic determinism

    http://venus.va.com.au/suggestion/sapir.html

     

Additional Materials: -

• Notes on language by Mr Muddle the Headmaster.
• Class notes.

                                                                 

---

Bibliography: -

        

• .
• Allott, R. 2001. The great mosaic Eye: Language and Evolution Chapter I. Book Guild.  
• Micheal Woolman, 2000. Ways of knowing: section 2 Prison and prairie.
• The American Heritage® Dictionary’

---