In the statement "All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language", there are implications of language being superior to other
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?
In the statement "All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language", there are implications of language being superior to other aspects of knowledge - perception, reason and emotion. Language does not necessarily "control" all the other ways of knowledge, but leans more towards "can heavily influence" the other ways of knowledge. Whether the two terms are synonyms or whether this statement is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language relies heavily on the definition of the word control, which is as each individual would interpret it. Therein lies one of the more important problems of knowledge in language; how would one know what the true definition of a word is? In this sense, what is true? In a society, through consensus gentium we determine the general "true" definition of a word; if so, the essentially the meaning of a word is only what we determine it to be. Control could arguably mean impact, influence, dictate all at the same time. What is the true meaning? In essence, the general meaning of control lies somewhere around "has a great deal (approx. 95% influence) over". Regarding the relationships between perception, emotion, reason and language, they are co-dependant on each other, thus annulling the general definition of control.
The relationship between perception and language is one where emphasis is put on the individual and society. Perception is something that an individual determines with their own senses, and thus perception is arguably only personal. However, the external forces (I.e. environment) can impact how the individual views their surroundings. For example, in the hypothetical world of the book "1984" by George Orwell, the government established double-think: the language used to describe a certain object can be changed at any given time, and the people would have to change the way they perceive that certain object to accommodate the demands of the government. However, aren't the definitions of words what we make them, through consensus gentium? If we change the label of a certain object, such as from water bottle to chair, are we changing the way we perceive the object or the way we perceive the word? What constitutes water bottle, or chair? Consensus gentium. Additionally, a problem with the theory of language controlling perception is the individual. If a person is already pre-conditioned to think a perceive something a certain way, then it is difficult, maybe even impossible to completely change that perception. Referring back to the novel "1984", the biggest threat to double-think were the older generation and the educated. Why? Because they had already been pre-conditioned to think that certain things are true, while other things simply are not true. No amount of propaganda would make them think otherwise. Thus, language is unable to completely control perception, but is capable of swaying one's perspective.
What does this statement mean and do you think it is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language?
In the statement "All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language", there are implications of language being superior to other aspects of knowledge - perception, reason and emotion. Language does not necessarily "control" all the other ways of knowledge, but leans more towards "can heavily influence" the other ways of knowledge. Whether the two terms are synonyms or whether this statement is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language relies heavily on the definition of the word control, which is as each individual would interpret it. Therein lies one of the more important problems of knowledge in language; how would one know what the true definition of a word is? In this sense, what is true? In a society, through consensus gentium we determine the general "true" definition of a word; if so, the essentially the meaning of a word is only what we determine it to be. Control could arguably mean impact, influence, dictate all at the same time. What is the true meaning? In essence, the general meaning of control lies somewhere around "has a great deal (approx. 95% influence) over". Regarding the relationships between perception, emotion, reason and language, they are co-dependant on each other, thus annulling the general definition of control.
The relationship between perception and language is one where emphasis is put on the individual and society. Perception is something that an individual determines with their own senses, and thus perception is arguably only personal. However, the external forces (I.e. environment) can impact how the individual views their surroundings. For example, in the hypothetical world of the book "1984" by George Orwell, the government established double-think: the language used to describe a certain object can be changed at any given time, and the people would have to change the way they perceive that certain object to accommodate the demands of the government. However, aren't the definitions of words what we make them, through consensus gentium? If we change the label of a certain object, such as from water bottle to chair, are we changing the way we perceive the object or the way we perceive the word? What constitutes water bottle, or chair? Consensus gentium. Additionally, a problem with the theory of language controlling perception is the individual. If a person is already pre-conditioned to think a perceive something a certain way, then it is difficult, maybe even impossible to completely change that perception. Referring back to the novel "1984", the biggest threat to double-think were the older generation and the educated. Why? Because they had already been pre-conditioned to think that certain things are true, while other things simply are not true. No amount of propaganda would make them think otherwise. Thus, language is unable to completely control perception, but is capable of swaying one's perspective.
