I'm not defending Arendt's position nor that of the idea that we are prisoners of language - but only offering still another possible position - As far as the question of speechless thought - we do know children think before they speak and we also know that the nature of the brains activity relative to thought changes with the acquisition of language - as for your example of contemplation eg reflection speechless thought it is not an act that forgoes language for it referrs to "thinking about something seriously and at length, in order to understand it more full" - in most cases while contemplation is non verbal - it involves speaking to one's self. On the other hand perception,cognition, and recognition may constitute speechless thought - as well as the workings of the unconscious, which Freud among others argued had no language of its own and therefor manifested itself by other means - dreams and slips of the tongue as well as what might be considered thoughtless acts.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 8/21/12 11:18:23 AM, [email protected] writes: > > > > all communicable/ transmitttable thought is speech thought - the source > > and > > nature of all other thought is moot given it can not be transmitted but > > only speculated upon - > > > No, other thought is not moot. It is to the very point point of Arendt's > muddled assertion. The line by Arendt that I was commenting on was this > categoric: "Speechless thought cannot exist." I think that's > categorically > wrong. In any case, she did not say, "The only thought that is communicable > must be speech-thought." I imagine there are painters, dancers, composers, > even > architects who would say their works "communicate thought" -- in the sense > that when their works are contemplated they occasion thought in the > contemplators. And they can do this with no "speech" involved. > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 St NYC, NY 10011 [email protected]
