Still, I think that Wittgenstein was mistaken about the primary role of language, just like Aristotle was mistaken about the role of logic.
That’s why Nietzsche was skeptical — though he too could not separate rationality from language/logic and ended up demoting both in favour of intuition.
The truth, as I see it, is that rational understanding and knowledge are visual in nature (that’s why in many languages “to see” has the meaning of “to understand”). As for language, we only use it for communication, to describe our vision to others.
And as for Aristotelean logic, I think it is an illusion. That’s not how we reason.
Life is recursive, but language is linear. Language collapses spirals of experience into words, encoding the logic and perspective of the culture that created it. It evolved from geometry and retains it at its core, but coherence depends on shared understanding between speaker and listener. Where words fail, experience speaks; where culture limits, perspective narrows. Language shapes thought only insofar as it shapes what can be said, not what can be felt.
No arguments on your deep reflection, just pure admiration for surfacing philosophy, linguistics and neuroscience in ways I’d love to read more about so I’m glad I found your substack.
I never got into the neuroscience of linguistics so I love the part here about language’s impact on the nervous system - I wish more people understood this.
Yes. To one of your many points there is a very real difference in thinking and speaking between a gendered or gender neutral language. For example French vs English. The difference very much alters the pattern of thought over time and quickly. One utilitarian and the other expressive. The difference is felt and percieved if the observer is present behind the eyes. Your work is remarkable.
great read! Ive been reading up on Sapir Whorf theory and AI development. Interestingly researchers have noted that with complex issues AIs tend to switch between chinese and english in the backend and when told to use just a single language they were recorded to do the same task but notably slower and with much larger token usage.
Maybe I should learn my months in chinese and then I’ll finally remember the order 😔
A strong overview of how language may shape thought. I was just a bit surprised not to see Chomsky mentioned, especially with how much attention Sapir-Whorf gets in the article.
Yeah Chomsky also would have been a great fit. It's just not really in the realm of my “expertise” (not that I am an expert in any of the other topics). This is more of a linguistic-/ biopsychological analysis. And the works I mentioned are often the focus of these papers.
This is a very well-written and engaging work. I appreciate the balance you strike between Wittgenstein’s cage and the more permeable, flexible reality revealed by empirical evidence. I cannot say I have explored these depths with the rigor this essay demonstrates, but it checked some boxes I’ve pondered on before and also took me in directions I hadn’t yet considered.
One thought that kept circling in my mind while reading is how language seems bound up with consciousness itself. It feels evolutionary, as if our awareness and our words emerged alongside each other. I’ve heard the hypothesis that our earliest memories as children don’t fully “exist” until we begin to speak. In other words, our memories (perhaps even more than our reality) are defined by language.
That limitation is never more apparent than when we attempt to describe what lies beyond common experience. I’ve never done psychedelics myself, but I’ve listened to others struggle to articulate their experiences, frustration etched in their faces as they reach for words that don’t exist. Dreams feel similar; they slip through our fingers partly, perhaps, because our language lacks the categories to pin them down. If we don’t have the words, then maybe we don’t even have the memory.
Thank you for weaving philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience together in this way. It affirms what I often explore in my own reflections: that language doesn’t just describe our world; it makes and remakes it, while never quite touching whatever lies beyond its reach.
Great research, solid article.
Still, I think that Wittgenstein was mistaken about the primary role of language, just like Aristotle was mistaken about the role of logic.
That’s why Nietzsche was skeptical — though he too could not separate rationality from language/logic and ended up demoting both in favour of intuition.
The truth, as I see it, is that rational understanding and knowledge are visual in nature (that’s why in many languages “to see” has the meaning of “to understand”). As for language, we only use it for communication, to describe our vision to others.
And as for Aristotelean logic, I think it is an illusion. That’s not how we reason.
https://silkfire.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-logic
Life is recursive, but language is linear. Language collapses spirals of experience into words, encoding the logic and perspective of the culture that created it. It evolved from geometry and retains it at its core, but coherence depends on shared understanding between speaker and listener. Where words fail, experience speaks; where culture limits, perspective narrows. Language shapes thought only insofar as it shapes what can be said, not what can be felt.
This is well described.
excellent wow!
No arguments on your deep reflection, just pure admiration for surfacing philosophy, linguistics and neuroscience in ways I’d love to read more about so I’m glad I found your substack.
I never got into the neuroscience of linguistics so I love the part here about language’s impact on the nervous system - I wish more people understood this.
Thank you :) I am glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for a totally impressive piece of writing.
Love to see how you merged your understanding of neuroscience with philosophy that touch of Wittgenstein was a great starter.
It goes both ways. Thought also shapes language.
Yes. To one of your many points there is a very real difference in thinking and speaking between a gendered or gender neutral language. For example French vs English. The difference very much alters the pattern of thought over time and quickly. One utilitarian and the other expressive. The difference is felt and percieved if the observer is present behind the eyes. Your work is remarkable.
great read! Ive been reading up on Sapir Whorf theory and AI development. Interestingly researchers have noted that with complex issues AIs tend to switch between chinese and english in the backend and when told to use just a single language they were recorded to do the same task but notably slower and with much larger token usage.
Maybe I should learn my months in chinese and then I’ll finally remember the order 😔
Thank you! And yes your point makes very much sense, very interesting.
A strong overview of how language may shape thought. I was just a bit surprised not to see Chomsky mentioned, especially with how much attention Sapir-Whorf gets in the article.
Yeah Chomsky also would have been a great fit. It's just not really in the realm of my “expertise” (not that I am an expert in any of the other topics). This is more of a linguistic-/ biopsychological analysis. And the works I mentioned are often the focus of these papers.
does the thoughts do not shape the language? Or how can words evolve without the thoughts in the beginning?
This is a very well-written and engaging work. I appreciate the balance you strike between Wittgenstein’s cage and the more permeable, flexible reality revealed by empirical evidence. I cannot say I have explored these depths with the rigor this essay demonstrates, but it checked some boxes I’ve pondered on before and also took me in directions I hadn’t yet considered.
One thought that kept circling in my mind while reading is how language seems bound up with consciousness itself. It feels evolutionary, as if our awareness and our words emerged alongside each other. I’ve heard the hypothesis that our earliest memories as children don’t fully “exist” until we begin to speak. In other words, our memories (perhaps even more than our reality) are defined by language.
That limitation is never more apparent than when we attempt to describe what lies beyond common experience. I’ve never done psychedelics myself, but I’ve listened to others struggle to articulate their experiences, frustration etched in their faces as they reach for words that don’t exist. Dreams feel similar; they slip through our fingers partly, perhaps, because our language lacks the categories to pin them down. If we don’t have the words, then maybe we don’t even have the memory.
Thank you for weaving philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience together in this way. It affirms what I often explore in my own reflections: that language doesn’t just describe our world; it makes and remakes it, while never quite touching whatever lies beyond its reach.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ishasnow/p/modern-colonial-social-skills-as?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1wmz35