How does language influence reality?

[de Silentio]

Isn't the transcendental metaphysical by definition? Or am I confusing terms?

Aedes: If language is innate, does this in turn mean that we have the foundations for language a priori?

[Arjen]

Transcendental exist a priori and is therefore not metaphysical. It can only be deduced by metaphysics though so transcendental philosophies are metaphysical. (<-- confusing).

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Ciana5

I do not believe that "language" is the culprit here, the person using it is conveying thoughts and ideas. The real culprit would be "interpretation" which is at the receiving end of the language.

I would completely disagree with you saying that the truth is ineffable thus all language forms a lie which in terms of interpretation causes a fundamental inescapable error of judgement. So language is the problem and interpretation is just an endeavor - like using a wonderful chainsaw on a piece of chip board.

[soullight]

Language allows us to organize reality collectively, and also, as individuals; by method of melding us together in a central cause to create greater self-creations. I dont' believe it to be the driving force, it is merely a tool to direct thoughts and feelings into a singlle pointed focus, so that we can quickly identify with mental representations of our perceptions of reality. Thoughts and feelings are the driving force of our creations, words are merely lables for self subliminal communication and so that we can easily minipulate the thoughts and feelings of others into a specific action or reaction.

[de Silentio]

Thoughts and feelings are the driving force of our creations

How does one have thoughts that are meaningful before they have some sort of language to organize those thoughts?

Perhaps language is not the driving force of thought, but the vehicle of thought.

[soullight]

I believe it to be a vehicle that facilitates the process of thought. Every thought is meaninful in relation to the purpose or thing being thought about, even in it's aborning stage, which is pushed forward by an intuitive understanding of organization.

[chad3006]

Goshisdead's above post made me think of words that aren't really part of a language (Rudyard Kipling used them alot; like "squidgy widgy" mud), but that are instantly understandable to those who speak the language. Are these universally undersandable to those who don't speak English? Anyone?

[Doobah47]

I think it is possible for anybody to comprehend a meaning of any word/phrase even if they do not 'know' the language in which it is spoken. Many English speakers can comprehend "deja vu" without ever knowing it is equivalent to "already seen".

This brings up the interesting topic of 'talking in toungues' -- something evangelical Christians do, and something which pervades such fields as left-field music or abstract art... quite a digression...

[GoshisDead]

Because Deja vu is an English word. English speakers know it the same way they know cat. Knowing its etymology has nothing to do with knowing its current sense.