Thought and language

Is it possible to think without language?  How does language facilitate, extend, direct or limit thinking?

It is not possible to have a conscious organized thought without language but it is possible to think or at least it is possible to make connections between things. Babies are the best example of this because babies are able to learn although there is no evidence and no way that they can actually be born already speaking and understanding one language. Thought is a very complicated thing and I think that language is required in order to have a complex thought like “I am hungry I think I will have dinner now what do I need to do in order to find food?”  but before language was created the human species did survive without it instead of thinking he complex phrase above they might have seen food, felt hunger and eaten it. They were able to make the connection between their feelings of hunger and the food that would make it go away without thinking about it. I think that language does facilitate more thoughts and it definitely helps direct and organize thought. How well you are able to speak a language is related to how complicated and direct your thoughts will become. When I am speaking English and thinking in English I can be deep and complicated and have organized thought processes. But when I am in French or Latin class I find myself speaking in more simple phrases and even thinking more simplistically. I think that as the complexity of language increased the mental capacity of our species also expanded.
wors count: 242

Exploring Counter claims

The article I chose was the article about the three strikes law in California about repeat offenders. One counter claim that could be made is that people all deserve a second chance and people make mistakes, but the same argument could be made for a serial killer or a terrorist. If you don’t want to go to prison then don’t commit the crime. “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”. Another argument that can be made in defense of the criminals is that they were addicted to drugs and they did it to feed their addiction. People don’t need to commit crimes, I am sure that there are people who had problems with drugs that never had to revert to illegal extracurricular activities, it is an addiction but if you had to steal to feed it then the addiction isn’t worth it. Besides a drug addict isn’t forced to take the drug, they made the decision or choice to use drugs either without considering the consequences or they knew what would happen and they are just reaping what they sow, but ignorance and disregard for their personal welfare are not justifiable excuses for violating another citizens constitutional rights. In America every single citizen has the right to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness, someone who violates that is breaking the law and should be punished. If they do it once a normal punishment is acceptable I guess but if they do it again and again it is wrong to let them go, it wasn’t their things they stole they had no right to those things but they took them any way.