Are you an aphantasiac? (Lacking of the capacity to mentally "see" or generate imagery).
That would be the only reason why I'd think this would not be self-evident. If I think of a concrete sidewalk, I literally imagine a suburban sidewalk composed of squares of poured concrete. I have a mental image of it prior to picking the words to describe it. Maybe it's white and smoothed, or gray and rough... But I still wordlessly visualize it.
In short, Wittgenstein put it best. Ways of life precede the language that nominatively identifies them.
my experience is that my 'conscious' thought is a constant thread of language in monologue. i'm not very good at meditation (though i don't practice much) because quieting my internal monologue feels nearly impossible. putting on podcasts helps me fall asleep because i no longer need to generate my own movement, but the external speaking can relax me.
i personally fall slightly more into the (maybe Lacanian) view that language is essential - maybe even primordial - in our formation of subjectivity. i don't necessarily buy into it 'scientifically' per se, but i'm skeptical of pure ideas existing without language, at least in any human subject capable of language. i don't really know, this is one of those places where i'm always fine tuning and changing my thoughts.
> i don't necessarily buy into it 'scientifically' per se, but i'm skeptical of pure ideas existing without language, at least in any human subject capable of language.
AFAICT that does happen to be scientifically inaccurate.
There have been experiments that show other primates exhibit a clear sense of fairness, for example. If one of the test subjects received food that was less desirable than what was given to the other test subject, the test subject with the less desirable food would get angry and eventually start throwing its food back at the researcher. I can't remember kind of primate this was. But they didn't possess a language, therefore this was an expression of a "pure idea existing without language."
I haven't read much more about this. But the idea that we acquired language while somehow dropping the ability to hold such pure ideas-- esp. in the domain of fairness-- seems unlikely.
So... Out of silliness. Consciously repeat a single word, say "blueberry", over and over and over and over again until you're sick of it, then try to visualize your actual house.
This is a mind quieting exercise that I read about in a book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.
Many people will get stuck when drawing, only making the crude symbols of the thing they are thinking about because they are thinking with the linguistic part of their brain. Much of the spacial processing tends to take place in the opposite hemisphere of the brain.
Repeating that same word over and over and over will exhaust the language processing part of your brain, allowing the non-verbal parts to do do their thing more effectively.
Bonus bit: The concern you have with the intrinsic link between language and thinking is exactly why Orwell was completely justified to my thinking to be concerned about manipulation of language as a mechanism to control thought.
The escape hatch, as it were, is that language as a concept transcends any of it's concrete implementations, and is intrinsically bound to the act of being. We are immersed in the business of being, and one can imagine a mute, illiterate thinking being nevertheless existing and thinking, without spoken, written, or heard language. Their language would just be to point at what it is they are trying to describe, or recalling the memory of it. Our words as spoken or written, are just a shorthand that allows us to communicate with one another and evoke a shared experience of being.
Everything is language. A language can constrain your thinking within the context and grammar of that language, but another language lacking the same constraints need not necessarily constrain thinking in the same way.
Wittgenstein thusly posits that the very act of Philosophy is constantly engaging in language games, in which we experiment with changing up the rules by which we communicate in the attempt to forge shared understanding.
In short: Communication is really hard, and once you start thinking about, you'll really start having to wonder whether anyone really does deep and meaningful "we're saying the same thing about the same thing" level communication a lot less than we think we do.
indeed that was a major problem i had the last time i tried any visual arts :) i've added the book to my list, it's something i have wanted to learn, or unlearn i guess, for quite a long time!
on one hand, i feel a strong aversion to anybody trying to prescribe a better linguistic framework with the goal of solving political discourse. others in this thread have noted that this essay has become a guideline for political writing. as i think we have seen with media recently, news media was perfectly comfortable to eschew the lofty diction of academia for the down-to-earth writing of the 'middle class.' if you skip past CNN and Fox, consent will just as easily be manufactured with 30 second viral videos on TikTok.
on the other hand, i do really really care about politics and communication. i don't want to throw out all language just because those moments where truly deep and meaningful communication are indeed incredibly rare. i'm on a big critical theory kick lately and it leaves me pretty depressed... but also i think it's too accurate to ignore. i guess i'm just tired of the language games and the hope for an event which will only reproduce the same social relations. i want to believe! :)
anyway, you've left me with lots to think about, and i appreciate your explanations! i will look more into Wittgenstein, my path through these thinkers has been a little backwards and random since it's not through academia.
No problem. For Wittgenstein in particular, hit up Philosophical Investigations, his latter work. Tractatus is a bit more "language must be like math", while PI was informed by a bit more time having lived life. Most of what I'm referring to can be found there.
That would be the only reason why I'd think this would not be self-evident. If I think of a concrete sidewalk, I literally imagine a suburban sidewalk composed of squares of poured concrete. I have a mental image of it prior to picking the words to describe it. Maybe it's white and smoothed, or gray and rough... But I still wordlessly visualize it.
In short, Wittgenstein put it best. Ways of life precede the language that nominatively identifies them.