Hi, Charles Myro here,
一方面，似乎很清楚，如果没有语言，我们甚至不能问这个问题:“没有语言有思考吗?”另一方面，如果我们认为文字对于思考是必要的，那么我们就永远无法超越文字，去发现是否有没有文字的思想存在;有点像康德的东西本身，它对我们来说是不可接近的，所以让我们感到不安。
Or maybe we can assume that words are not necessary for thought-perhaps mental pictures or some such may occur----but wait, this statement's in words, and it seems that I couldn't even have that thought without words; could we have mental pictures without the words "mental pictures"?; where does the word end and the thing begin?
Something tells me I will be chasing my tail in a moment and I'd better stop now.
Please let me know when you solve the issue, ok?

对我来说，词语意味着可传达的概括和语义内容。当我们从另一种语言中找到一个语义内容具有有益概括性的词时，我们就采用它。此外，如果只是我们思考的单词，而不是单词的语义内容，那么在一开始怎么可能学习新单词呢?
With this in mind, the reason we use words to make plans is because we simply use words to link together the semantic content using a grammatical structure to show the relation of the content. It reminds me of Wittgenstein, who says that words and grammar work together to form an image of the world that we then see as corresponding to some state of affairs. We understand the image as well as the world, but often it is easier to arrange the image than it is the world itself. Hence, thinking in words allows us to arrange the image and find what state of affairs will correspond to it. We can do this in any way we want, so long as we symbolically represent the world and have relations between them that we can understand. This also helps us understand how new words help us understand the world better, they create a new image that we then see corresponding to the world and thus we develop a richer view of the world by enlarging our number of possible images of the world.
This is summary of course, but I think it compromises between the "we think exclusively in language" and "language is a byproduct" crowd because it still relies on the semantic content of the words and our ability to understand the semantic content prior to the linguistic element.

To quote another blogster, name of Comrade Ade (15 Minute Philosopher): words are messy. The Canadian linguist,Pinker, approaches this, in a round about way in some of his works. Words are what we humans have; what we use to try to make sense of relations and relationships---to get along with our families, friends and neighbors. But there are interminable misunderstandings and misinterpretations of meaning(s). Some of these are by accident-some are not. Personal agendas are causative in this regard. Frequently. Intentionally, or accidentally. We all know this, intuitively and experientially. As Wilber has said: and just so.
Languages are poignantly different; nuance is as varied as the gradations of colour in the rainbow. But people, emotions, agendas and expectations are largely the same, cultural differences notwithstanding.
If you noticed my spelling of the word colour, you might have thought I'm from England. You would have been wrong. You were only having an expectation based on experience or assumption. Words are worth a lot. Things are difficult with them. Things would be more so without.

你如何发现文字、语言或概念是否扭曲了现实?
Once you presume that reality and language are separate and different things then it follows that if you stop thinking and speaking, just sit there, then that is reality.
Then start thinking and speaking again and see if the reality is different.
But how do you know whether reality includes words and concepts or not? What would tell you that what there is without words is reality but what there is with words is not reality?
How would you confirm one way or the other? Seems rather an assumption.
Seems to me that language, words, concepts etc., are
, if anything, part of our reality.
And on "semantic content": If a watusi describes a warthog and it is translated for me into english, it is not at all clear that the two descriptions are the same or even equivalent. Thus the basis for a common "semantic content" is very much dubitable. How would you show, for instance, that the "semantic content" is the same and it is just the "expression" of the content that is different or vice versa.
And Wittgenstein's theory of meaning or sense; that the structure of a statement somehow mirrors the structure of the world. How would one confirm that the world has the structure and its not just the words that have the structure?

一个人需要定义的最重要的词是真理。
Truth is One!
Be One too,
=

All of these questions, theories and postulations about words! Those fundamental fragments of human communication... I am not a Cartesian---haven't read much or M. Descartes' work. But I do recall something he said about those things relative v. those absolute.
他说，本质上，有些东西是相对的，有些是绝对的。所以，我想说的是:我们使用的一些词语是相对的;有些是绝对的。到目前为止，一切顺利。
但是，等一下。笛卡尔经常自相矛盾——他的想法令人困惑;他的散文充满了复杂的复合句，导致不可靠的结论。教会对他毫无帮助，因为他必须遵守教会的教条，否则就会被贴上“异教徒”的标签，并被审查(或更糟)。不过，他关于相对与绝对的说法听起来是正确的。
至少，他是在死前出版的(不是吗?)
Pere Teilhard du Chardin was not so fortunate. But, then again, du Chardin did not bow to the power of the Church. Well. Here we are today; still arguing about what? Words. How quaint.

Decartes simplified the problem of truth in a place called Ulm, the town where the great problem solver Einstein was born. He rebooted like a computer his own self, Decartes' Method. The result was "I" the absolute, his true self. Unfortunately he couldn't deal with it and his thoughts grabbed him like a bad habit and pulled him back again too his as is ours most uncertain Ways. He found the truth, himself, and lost it again.
I have yet to find any One else past or present east or west to have grasped it All, if only for a fleeting moment.
Study Decartes, it may help you along the way!
=

我读过笛卡尔的作品。试图理解他。费了很大的劲。失败了。我想这是我的损失。显然，我漏掉了一些东西。或者，也许，没有那么多值得错过?谢谢你,不管怎样,MJH。你俳句般的评论让人耳目一新。

我来自新乌尔姆，我打赌你也不知道?
Oh and, I found what they were looking for.
Truth is much more simple than thought.
=
MJA
Thanks for the great forum,
哲学家是真理的真正爱好者。

...if I may suggest:
Rather than "Philosophy Talk ...the blog"
我认为:“哲学讲座…中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播…“学园”的名字更响亮。
But then what are words worth anyway?
=

Words/language/paradigms do not distort reality. It just is what it is. If some of us want to re-arrange that, too freakin bad for the rest of us, who may not benefit from re-arrangements. But, then again, this is why we invented politics and religion, isn't it? Oh, please don't hit me with the divinity issue. Or The Jesus Incident. Or The Lazarus Effect Good night, Irene---good night. Frank Herbert and Robert Anson Heinlein, RIP.