A word is worth a thousand pictures?

I wanted to write, briefly, on what I perceive as a vast underestimation of the impact language has had on the world around us by the general populous. A quick google search or two will tell you just how overlooked language is in the eyes of the public. The widespread usage of the wheel, agriculture, and electricity seem to consistently rate as the most important developments in mankind's history.

Here's the thing, though: without a common form of communication, a group does not have lasting organization. Without organization, there is no adoption of agriculture, inventing of the wheel or harnessing of electricity. There is very little knowledge passed down at all. It is language, above all else, that separates humanity from animals. One only needs to consider that every human tribe with any sort of culture that has ever existed, no matter how remote, has some form of communication responsible for holding them together.

Further, though it may be difficult, stop for a second and imagine the human thought process without any form of language. Imagine trying to have the thoughts currently going through your mind without words. Go ahead. Right now. I'll wait.

Are you done? I don't know about you, but it's not an easy thing for me to do.

Next, pretend you are in the wild with a small, dialect-less group, and, for the first time ever, you come across a delicious red apple. Hesitantly, you decide to bite into the strange object and are delighted. You're now able to remember the color, taste and emotional response provided by taking that bite, but the only means you have of sharing such an experience is by physically gesturing to those nearby, pointing at the apples, and eating more. Now let's pretend you've simply never tried or seen an apple before in your life, but you speak one or more languages. Though you've never seen a picture of one, others have told you what apples look and taste like. Consequently, without fear one day, you pick up an apple and eat it knowing full well its characteristics in advance. This example may seem like an obvious triviality for most, but think of the gravity of what has occurred here; people in your past have successfully managed to alter your perception and expectations of the world by making sounds at you.

This trend continues onward to the point where sometimes language can incite emotional responses that would otherwise not even exist. For instance, if someone calls another person ugly or makes fun of his or her personal outlook of the world, then the provoked individual will likely react in some way. The very fact that this kind of thing can even occur should blow your mind. Why? Again, such a reaction occurred simply and only because one person made sounds at another. The person feeling bad or angry for being verbally insulted has changed their own thought process based on noises emitted from a foreign entity. That's no small feat. That's the equivalent of mind control.

Let's try a more complex and emotional example, now. Say you're in the wild, again without language, and you have a mate. While you were off hunting and gathering food for the day, your mate has had some afternoon fun with a nearby tree-neighbor. You return, notice something is up and become emotionally distraught upon discovering (maybe through subtle body signals) what has transpired. Without any way of expressing your understandably conflicted feelings, perhaps you shout, throw a stone pot, or storm off. Regardless, do you know what you're not doing? Organizing your inner feelings in your head with linear thoughts or expressing such emotions aloud to your mate in an understandable manner.

To put things even more in perspective, these words I am writing now would be impossible to express without my knowledge of English. Likewise, any emotions or thoughts that you, the reader, happen to experience while reading this are only possible because you can understand my writing. Language forms ideas where there would otherwise be none, promoting organization, communication, and development. The more able an individual can distinguish and express their thoughts, the more they can understand and act upon the reality around them. An unfortunate or interesting side effect, however, is that, just as if people that existed in the wild without words would be limited in their ability to express certain thoughts and emotions, people with language are all similarly ignorant of their own thought potential. All humans, regardless of what language or languages they happen to speak, are governed by the specific set of rules that organizes their language(s). For instance, I happen to speak English, so my thoughts are governed by English's own organization and structure. A person that speaks only French or Japanese or German, or even all three, would similarly be limited. As a result, think of the potentially limitless thoughts and emotions that we'll never experience simply because the languages we speak prevent us from attaining them.

This is the staggering power language has on humanity. Greater than religion, greater than electricity, greater than war, greater than agriculture. Language is our superpower.

As a final point, if you happen to disagree with anything I have said, just remember that your reaction, whatever it may be, is based on the fact that you've been staring, idly in front of a screen, at otherwise incomprehensible and irrelevant scribbles for as long as it took you to read this.

I was going to make another post about religion...

I was going to make a post about why people dwell so much on the origin of life and humanity, but then I saw this video and figured I'd save it for later.

Separating the past from present.

For an arguably more trivial topic: ever have those moments where you want to watch, read or do something but can't because it reminds you of something or someone else? Every once in a while I'll come across a book or movie, maybe one I haven't seen or don't remember, and absolutely refuse to experience it. Why? Because it reminds me of an aspect of my past that I don't like.

My most recent example is absurdly simple: Harry Potter. Here's the thing, I like the series. Though I never read all of the books, I remember greatly enjoying the ones I had. Though I haven't seen all of the movies, I've likewise enjoyed the ones I've watched. The problem? I want to bring myself to read/watch them again in their entirety but can't. Every time I think about watching the movies, I am reminded of a girl I used to date. And that thought alone keeps me from watching them again.

What I find strange, though, is that I don't regret the memories I have with that person, nor do I "hate" her in any regard. In fact, she isn't someone I've thought or cared about in years. For whatever reason, though, those memories are just ones that I do not wish to be reminded of. I definitely wasn't as happy with my life back then as I am now, so maybe I'm just afraid to remember what I was like back then? Or maybe I just don't want to catch myself thinking about a person not in my life anymore? I'm not sure, but I do know that my case isn't necessarily isolated. Occasionally I'll talk to a friend who will give the same excuse for not wanting to watch or read something I've suggested to them; either it reminds them of a time in their life in which they were unhappy, or it reminds them of someone they'd rather not think about.

In my case, the thought has crossed my mind that if I were to watch the movies again, freshly, I would create a new experience separate from my past. Even still, I wonder what causes such strange reactions within people; how seemingly irrelevant or outdated memories can have such powerful impacts on the present. How many things in my life will I miss out on because an aspect of my past dissuades me from experiencing them?

Scientific progress as an objective good?

I've been mulling this idea around in my head for a few days now after visiting my brother fairly recently. We were discussing the age-old topic of religion when he had me watch this presentation by Neil Tyson concerning the detrimental role religion, more specifically intelligent design, can have upon scientific progress when called upon. The mild debate we were having regarding this matter was never fated to get very heated. My brother, at least now, classifies himself mostly as an atheist and, to the best of my knowledge, believes religion to be outright detrimental to the human race as a whole. As for myself, I align more towards an agnostic atheistic school of thought; in essence, I also do not believe in the existence of a personal god yet simultaneously do not discount the possibility for others, nor do I believe religion holds any absolute detriment to mankind. As a result, even if we weren't on the same page, we were most assuredly within the same book.

While I've heard the usual claims that without religion there would be less conflict, dissonance, etc. in the world, I've never heard a compelling, quantifiable argument against religion itself. Not really, anyway. In the video, however, Tyson argues that intelligent design should be taught in the classroom as an example of what not to do. He makes a very cohesive point concerning the dangers of enacting intelligent design by bringing up countless thinkers that have been limited in their discoveries due to the idea that only God was capable of solving certain problems (i.e.- enacting intelligent design). Tyson's point is that the so-called "unsolvable" problems were then solved by other mere mortals at later points in time.

The most interesting example Tyson brings up by far, however, is the case of medieval Islam roughly 1,000 years ago when Hamid al-Ghazali essentially claimed many scientific discoveries as sacrilegious in nature. Religion in this case basically halted all scientific progress. Halted human intellectual development.

My brother at least felt that this served as a good example of the overall negative impact religion can have. Indeed, I found Tyson's argument to be equally convincing against religion, but a thought that I can't quite separate myself from is the objective good of human progress. In Tyson's case, he was arguing against religion in relation to scientific discovery. In that regard, I agree wholeheartedly: intelligent design, by its very nature, most assuredly limits discovery. Where I'm not so sure is if that is inherently negative or not. Happiness, for me, is the most important aspect of humanity given that it doesn't forcibly encroach on another individual's happiness (which admittedly is sometimes impossible). While religion may indeed halt scientific progress, if that is what the majority of people desire who is anyone to say that a halting of said progress is, objectively, a bad thing? Like religion can sometimes give people inner peace and happiness, scientific progress can sometimes cure diseases, extend lifespans, and encourage discovery. However, just as religion can fuel conflict and strife, scientific progress can create environmental destruction and devastating weaponry. In the long run, who knows which is more detrimental than the other? I certainly do not.