I have been having trouble wrapping my brain around certain aspects of Hayakawa's book. For example in chapter one he states, "Human fitness to survive requires the ability to talk, write, listen, and read in ways that increase the chances for you and fellow members or the species to survive together." But what does that convey about people who choose to live life in solitude, or for that matter, those who are illiterate? Is achievement solely for those of us who take part in the norms of language in society?
In chapter two we learn more of maps and their connections and territories but on page 21 I became puzzled. “We can manufacture at will, with language, “maps” that have no reference to the extensional world. Here again no harm will be done unless someone makes the mistake of regarding such “maps” as representing real territories.” Is it always so wrong to live in a non-extensional mindset? Do people who choose this way of life deserve to be thrown into an asylum and prodded by questions? Is it only a mistake because that is how the majority of society views such thinking?
Further on in the book “slanting” is discussed and seems to have a negative connotation at first, but isn’t it just another method that we use to express opinions? Later on it is suggested that “slanting” shouldn’t be completely avoided, but what other methods of expressing are beliefs can be used to avoid becoming overly judgmental? Or is slanting not that judgmental, is it just a way of being blatantly honest?
I interpret what Hayakawa says about opinions, as they can never be completely regarded as fact. My question is what role do warnings play in this philosophy? Recently I read the book “Night” and I recall a man coming to Eliezer’s village to warn them of the horrors that were approaching. However the people viewed his opinions as madness. By not accepting opinions as fact are we dooming ourselves a trustless society, or are we protecting ourselves from ignorance?
Hayakawa, when writing about contexts concludes, “Few people ask by what authority the writers of dictionaries and grammars say what they say.” I am severely fascinated by this because often times at the high school I get frustrated about why I am being taught certain things, and who decided the methods on which education should be transferred. It is my understanding that a large part of how we learn is acceptance, but more and more as the decades pass people question less and accept too much. I we don’t stop to reexamine what is being taught, we could eventually loose our rights of expression and be thrown into a 1984 style of living.
I found myself taking, “Language in Thought and Action” as complete truth and didn’t question Hayakawa’s opinions. However I believe we should read other authors’ (or just other people in general) views on Hayakawa’s principles to take into account variation of opinions. In a way perhaps that is what we, as a class, are doing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interesting points! It is true that a person who chose to spend a life of solitude would have little use for language. However, I think when Hayakawa wrote "Human fitness to survive requires the ability to talk, write, listen, and read..." he was refering to society as a whole and not the individual. He goes on to write that "coordination for the functioning of society is achieved by language, or else it is not achieved at all" (Hayakawa, 9). Cooperation amongst members of the species is necessary if we are to advance. Think about it - you could not get very far in modern society if you were not able to read or write. After all, "language makes progress possible" (Hayakawa 7). Because of the invention of language and writing, we can pick up where our ancestors left off and aren't limited to our memory.
No, it is not always wrong to live in a non-extensional world. Sometimes it's fun to daydream or be silly - no one can be serious all of the time. But the harm comes when we start believing false "maps" are true. Superstitions are an example of false maps. Let's say you have a "lucky" rabbit's foot. Because it is so lucky, you decide not to study for your algebra test tomorrow. You fail your test - and you are extremly upset because you thought you would pass.
Superstitions are fun to believe in. I admit that I read my horoscope in the morning paper, but I don't let it control my life. If I did, then I would be thought of as eccentric.
I don't think "slanting" is just another method used to express opinions. "Slanting gives no explicit judgments, but it differs from reporting in that it makes certain judgments inescapable. One-sided or biased slanting... is a technique of lying without actually telling any lies" (Hayakawa 30). Tabloids are filled with slanted stories because gossip sells. Unfortunatly, stories in the news are becoming a bit slanted as well. While it is true that slanting can never be completly avoided, it is important to discover one's bias. "The writer who is neither an advocate nor an opponent avoids slanting, except in search of special literary effects. The avoidance of slanting is not only a matter of being impartial; it is even more importantly a matter of making good maps of the territory of experience... The individual with genuine skill in writing and thinking can, with imagination and insight, look at the same subject from many different points of view" (Hayakawa 31).
I agree with you, Paige, that we cannot simply accept what Hayawaka (or anyone) says as being the absolute truth. It would be wise to read other authors and hear their opinions as well. I think Hayakawa is certainly qualified to write this book - he was a professor, college president, and US Senator. But this does not make him the ultimate authority on the subject.
Hi, it's Erin.
I definitely agree with Ashley that Paige made some very interesting points. I think that even though a person might live a life in solitude, that they are not completely removed from language. The person would have thoughts, an internal monologue within. Language is how we express ourselves and communicate.
I read a book once about two women who didn't speak the same language but became friends and I find that an interesting concept because to me that seems communicating would be so difficult. But there are other ways to express oneself besides words (which are just symbols and noises for things or concepts); there is body language for example, and sometimes how something is said is more important than what (in the case of sarcasm). I think that if you view language as a means of expressing and communicating, language is not limited solely to words spoken.
Not everything has a counterpart in the extensional world, the world of the senses. For example, you can not point at gravity, but it does exist and you can see its effects. The ability to create is to dream in a sense. Whoever came up with a plane or car had nothing in the extensional world to look at, but created an idea within his head and had to create the object itself. Also there are ideas that cannot be express extensionally, love and happiness and peace and hate and sorrow - they are abstract ideas. I don't think spending time in a nonextensional world is condemnned (as Ashley says, daydreaming is fun) but I think that when you live there and can't separate fantasy from reality isn't so good.
I think that the final idea that Paige brought up was very interesting. Are we taking for granted that everything Hayakawa states is true? Hayakawa himself said that to a surprising degree we trust each other's reports. I do think that we should always look closely at what is said, testing the logic and questioning, to determine if something is true.
(sorry this is so long)
Ok, this might be putting too much thought into it, but as Erin said, the author states that we trust each other's reports. We take them for fact and rarely question the findings of another. So, since we take reports to usually be true, could they sometimes be false. Maybe we can't live constantly in a nonextensial mindset because we need to experience fact ourselves to make sure it really is valid.
What if maps are incorrect and Brazil is actually on the other side of South America but everyone just assumed it was on the right. Only those who weren't depending on the map and were living in South America would know the truth.
Maybe, like you've been saying, we can't take Hayakawa's findings as facts because they themselves are judgments on human behaviour. This is confusing!
If Brazil was actually on the other side of South America, not just those people would know the truth, almost everyone in the world would know...(the pooling of knowledge)
But I do think it's interesting what was said about beleiving everything Hayakawa tells us. This is a perfect example of bias...we are biased toward completly beleiving his every word because of his background and credentials...but I don't think that's a bad thing.
I thought Amy's point about Brazil was interesting. It has a lot to do with "maps and territories". I mean, an obvious example is when people thought the world was flat and most Europeans didn't know that North and South America existed. Their "map" (or knowledge) of the world really had no extensional "territory" to match.
Oops, I'm sorry. Previous post was Erin but I forgot to put my name :)
Post a Comment