5 Answers

  1. No. Thinking is a process that precedes terminology. Why is it considered the opposite today? Because people were made slaves. Initially, a person was considered to be one who is capable of independent consciousness and thinking. That is, in the process of Co-creating the World, a person acted as a co-producer of an idea, and not a consumer. Only the consumer of ideas created before him can not do without a terminological basis in thinking. The one who creates his own thought does not need a verbal designation at all, or uses it only as an auxiliary tool. Echoes of this old knowledge can be found even in religious texts. It is” created in the image and likeness ” that means the presence of creativity and the ability to stand on your own. Today's average “person” is formed and brought up in such a way that he does not think anything, without relying on the already existing prerequisites, indicated and introduced into this or that framework of this or that terminology. But the world would cease to exist if it were submerged in Vikalpa. Those who benefit from having a collection of subhumans as their subject population encourage the underrepresentation of children in every possible way, intentionally or thoughtlessly. An undereducated subhuman is not able to think for himself, without words and other signs and models, mathematical, semantic, and others. It becomes a dead end when trying even just to know the World as it is, and not according to the proposed “models” and verbal designations. All the more reason to Co-Create further. This is done, among other things, by substituting the terminology itself and by subordinating consciousness to the oppression of terminology. A specific example from John: “In the beginning was the Word.” But every knowledgeable person knows that ” In the beginning was the Logos. And the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” But Logos is not a ” word.” Logos is a thought, idea, self-awareness in one degree or another and in another form. The word is a secondary and later translation of the meaning. That is, it is not just an inaccuracy in the translation from Greek. This is a deliberate distortion of the ancient meaning in order to enslave the consciousness of students and followers.�

    Based on the above, as well as what I have written many times and in various places, the answer to your question is categorically negative. Thank you for the beautiful question. All the best.

  2. You need to define the terms “language”and ” think”. If by ” language “we mean any set of symbols or images, and by” think “we mean processes in consciousness that somehow react to the phenomena of the external (for this consciousness) world, then yes,” language “is necessary to”think”.

    If we understand” language ” more narrowly and/or “think” more broadly, then it is not necessary.

  3. I don't think so.

    There is a theory that language shapes thinking. For example, the film Arrival describes a story in which the heroine, after learning a language, gains the ability of native speakers to anticipate. But in real life, I believe, thinking forms language rather than the other way around.

    I often notice that at first a thought passes wordlessly through my head at lightning speed, just like a thought, and only then do I form it into a sentence (thus, by the way, limiting it and pushing it into the framework of existing words, so that in some sense language still affects thinking). Remember, something has probably happened to you that is difficult for you to describe in words, but you thought about it.

  4. How I laughed, for example, at the confidence of those who claimed that there is no
    other way of thinking than language! These philosophers did not know that they themselves
    belonged to a certain type of intelligent man, namely, the
    one who is deprived of mathematical abilities. How many times, when I have experienced
    a new revelation and have it indelibly etched in my memory, I have spent hours
    looking for language clothing for it, because it was born in me outside of any
    language, natural or formal.
    In my mind, I called this phenomenon ” the appearance of truth.”
    It is impossible to describe it. What emerges from the depths of the unconscious and
    gradually finds words for itself with difficulty,like nests, exists as
    a whole before it settles down inside these nests. But I would not have been able to give even a hint
    of what exactly this wordless Something appears to me
    (which is preceded by a sharp feeling that the wait
    will not be in vain). For a philosopher who has not experienced it himself, some
    important mechanisms of thinking are arranged differently from mine; for all our
    species similarities, the difference between us is greater than such
    thinkers would like.

    (c) S. Lem “The Voice of the Lord”

  5. Language is essential for the human thinking process. In principle, language is the main tool of thinking, its “engine”, its component part.�

    Any word in the human brain evokes an association, an image. Even a word whose meaning is unknown to us, but we know how it is pronounced, written, and heard. Thus, our memory systematically stores “prints” of associative images corresponding to words, phrases, and situations.

    Undoubtedly, images can be stored in memory and not tied to specific words, but all of them can only be obtained based on personal experience – the sensations of our sensory analyzers.�

    Since a person receives almost all of his knowledge in the process of development from the knowledge and experience of the rest of humanity, and only a small part-from personal experience, then a person can get the environment for implementing a full-fledged thinking process only through the use of an information coding system – language.�

    If a child is not taught any way to communicate with other people from birth, then he will grow up mentally retarded and the level of his thinking process will be inferior even to the level of a chimpanzee raised in his environment. People who are deafblind from birth, for example, without upbringing and training, remain at the level of a vegetable.

Leave a Reply