This is sorta what it feels like to think outside of langauge
This morning I had a personal breakthrough in my work, which is in the region of philosophy of science. That breakthrough came when I dropped all the incestuous vocabulary of philosophy (e.g. the word paradigm), as we typically know it, and just fandangled an idea through mental visualization. The danger here now, in this written post, is to try to put my breakthrough into words. In fact, I would much rather either A: create a visual representation of it; or ever better B: create a non-linguistic activity wherein someone would be able to discover this insight for themselves. But I won’t because C: my blog theme is games. But D… this post isn’t about games. Hey, perhaps if I throw in a tautological statement, everything will make sense!?
I see little point in telling people philosophical things. They won’t learn/remember them and those ideas or concepts won’t become theirs. Plus they will have to cite you, and students hate doing citations. A philosophy course should not be about answering anything, but providing the student the opportunity to discover answers to the questions that are either on their mind or are compelling to them when they are presented. We only learn what are want to learn.
Questions themselves can often times be misleading as they often come to us in language form. What would you like to eat for lunch today? What is a question before it is uttered? Are they simply curios notions? When a question is asked of us we might find ourselves stumbling over our words if it is something that we learned on a spacial-reasoning level, for example? If we are taking something from spacial reasoning and putting it into linguistic reasoning we get all discombobulated. Sorta like when the dreaded word problems section in math comes up.
If a train with the unknown velocity of x intersects with a critical mass of teenage angst in a suburban high school classroom, what is the ratio of x to daydreams, per pound of angst?
Show your work.
Perhaps we are all put together differently when it comes to the way that we think, but I strongly suspect that linguistic-centric people are the statistical outliers. Many academics that I have met tend to be linguistically-dominant thinkers and therefore they tend to think that language for the human race is the medium of thought itself (linguistic-determinists), or if not that extreme, language is the best medium to express thought in. Because I know that I do not need to think in English (or any other language), and I tend to feel the funnel of constraint when trying to put pre-linguistic thoughts into words, I don’t just think differently, I see things a bit differently. The truth is, I feel like I am writing with my non-dominant hand when I am trying to put things into words, except with either hand I’m writing, which is a non-dominant linguistic thought-process. Its like being mathematician in a literature department (or vice versa). Or like being a fish in ummm open air (aren’t I clever?). Apparently angst isn’t a teenage thing, it’s a school thing.
Now what, if anything, does a bonsai tree have to do with this post? See answer below.
˙ɔᴉɯǝpɐɔɐ uɐ ɟo uᴉɐɹq ǝɥʇ sᴉ sᴉɥ┴ ˙ɯƃᴉpɐɹɐd ɔᴉɯǝpɐɔɐ ɔᴉɹʇuǝɔ-ǝƃɐnƃuɐl ɐ uᴉ uᴉɐɹq ɹnoʎ sᴉ sᴉɥ┴ ˙ʇuᴉɐɹʇsuoɔ ǝɯǝɹʇxǝ ɹǝpun ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ʍoɹƃ sǝǝɹʇ ᴉɐsuoq :ɹǝʍsu∀