in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: don't { use Perl } in thread don't { use Perl }
Perhaps I was a little broad with my pen. The SW hypothesis is
generally considered refuted in its strong form. Its weak form
continues to be investigated and does raise interesting questions
in the cognitive sciences. But the weak form is really nothing at all
like the strong form of the hypothesis, the weak form merely posits
an interaction between language and thought, the strong form asserts
that language is a limiting factor in the interaction.
SW Hypothesis
by chaoticset (Chaplain) on Jun 11, 2002 at 04:20 UTC
|
Forgive what could be a stupid question.
If language and thought interact (by which I mean affect each other)...
And language is inherently less flexible than thought (as evidenced by all languages being contained within all thought)
Then wouldn't language be the limiting factor by definition? Not necessarily indicating that it must limit thought, but that in a system involving language and thought, language will always have fewer possible effects on thought than thought can have on language?
-----------------------
You are what you think. | [reply] |
|
Exactly. And not a stupid question by any means. Your final sentence
sums it up (though I think you have the premises in reverse). If
language must have fewer effects on thought than vica versa, language
is neither the limiting factor on thought, nor even a
limiting factor on thought. Wittgenstein did get some things wrong.
| [reply] |
|