Chapter 4.4: Structuralism, language and world
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2024
- This video is part of the series: 'The Philosophy of the Humanities' which you can find here • Philosophy of the Huma...
For more videos on Philosophy by Victor Gijsbers go to:
www.youtube.co....
Intromusic: "Styley" by Gorowski (www.wmrecording...)
Honestly what an amazing channel, thank you mr jesus i love u
Don't download it these are spam bots lmao
@Jone Manary any hacks how to get a gf first ?
0:14 Things are what they are because of structure they are built into.
0:34 Identity
0:42 Language consists of Signs.
(1) Signifier (2) The Signified (concept or meaning)
1:44 Sounds and Concepts
2:02,Traditional theories put naive emphasis on sounds and things
2:27 St Augustine writing on how he learned language
3:08 Augustine’s Theory. Show person object, say the word, person learns language. But Augustine went far too quickly.
3:57 Conceptual question of words.
4:38 Recall phoneme
5:19 Bread can illustrate multiple concepts, such as “bread, food, or mine”
5:45 We learn concepts by learning relations to other concepts.
6:46 Central Idea of Structuralism
7:43 Wittgenstein “Thought requires Language” You can only think about what you have words for “The Limits of my Language mean the limits of my world”
9:04 Augustinian conception of language. “Sounds come after thought”.
9:19 You learn concepts by learning language. Thought comes after language.
11:23 Summary of Thoughts
I know Im asking randomly but does someone know a tool to log back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot my account password. I love any tricks you can give me!
@Aidan Johnathan Instablaster =)
@Allan Jackson Thanks for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im in the hacking process atm.
I see it takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Allan Jackson It worked and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D
Thank you so much, you saved my account :D
@Aidan Johnathan you are welcome :D
Best explanation I've seen yet. When I see explanations about structuralism by post-structuralists, they speak in absolute incomprehensible gobbledygook. This speaker explains it using plain language. Well done!
“The Limits of my Language mean the limits of my world”
I like that a lot. There is a lot of truth that we allow our understanding to be limited by language and the time we invest in thinking.
Very well articulated and informative, Jesus.
Mr. Jesus is an amazing lecturer indeed.
previously we looked at phonemes and the idea that things are what they because of their greater structure they are a part of; this lecture, we discuss signs and meaning and relation between language and world; language consists of signs, which always have two sides: (a) the signifier, something that signifies and (b) signified, that which is signified by the signifier; the word 'book' is a pattern of phonemes that signifies a concept of "book," not a particular book or a material thing in the world or the collection of all the books in the world, but what is signified is an abstract idea of concept; the signs or language for S. are combination of sounds and concepts, not of sounds and things; tradition theories of language put a naïve emphasis on the relationship between sounds and things; we learn concepts by learning about the relations between all the concepts in our language; important idea of language: thought requires language: if you don't have words about things others than bread (as per the example of the video), then you cannot really think about other things besides breads; Wittgenstein: "the limits of my language means the limits of my world"; in contradiction to Augustine, you need to learn more than just the sound pattern that goes with bread in order to be able to think about the bread, i.e., you need to learn more than just the sound that signify a thing to be able to think about that thing (on this conception language is just sounds invented to accompany the thinking we already had before we had language; big idea: different languages can have different concepts, e.g., if we were first thinking concepts about trees and bread and THEN learning sounds that go with those thoughts, then all languages would have the same concepts and would just have different sounds for those concepts
excellent job, Dr. Gijsbers!
like always!
very clear, good material, good examples, and enough depth.
very interested to follow your courses on different aspects of philosophy.
don't know though if those are available online.
Amazing lecture. I liked the way you explain things and further clarify them by your examples. Thanks a lot.
There are a lot of assumptions here. There is one way around these assumptions. I listened to a podcast about thinking without words. it is about a group of people who grew up without a language and learned language once they were adults. They explained what it was like living with no language. That may be the only way we could get around these assumptions. I think you could find the podcast just by typing in thinking without language or something like that into Google. It is a pretty famous podcast I forgot the name of it.
I was thinking that too.
@@MacSmithVideo here is the podcast if anyone is interested. It's really cool.
www.wnycstudios.org/story/91725-words
Yes, to support your point, Stephen Pinker (an eminent psychologist) made the point that sometimes there are things we wish to say but can't find the words to say them. It can logically be deduced from this that we have thoughts without concepts sometimes. So a thought without a concept seems entirely possible.
However, if one has first has the concept/word (without the thought/meaning) one will face the difficulties suggested by structuralists (at least in theory). That is, I can have a thought and not have a concept to express it. However, if I am given a concept and need to find the thought it is intended to represent then I will experience the difficulties suggested by the structuralists.
no offense mate but have you considered that story to be true? i mean noam chomsky have told some stories being the opposite case ,that is , the fact that if after a certain age a child is not taught how to speak , he wont be able to acquire language as way of living thats why some theorists talk about developmental areas , jean piaget and others etc anyways im looking forward to listen to the podcast you mentioned and for that matter you politely posted thanks and cheers
Is it not possible that this is a misunderstanding based on a restricted definition of "language". Going back to Saussure's definition of signifier and signified, wouldn't a tone poem such as Dvořak's Vlatva be a signifier of the signified river, the Danube? The whole concept of magic, which runs through all of human history, assumes a real, active connection between the signifier and signified, whereas the ruling paradigm in modern societies is that these connections are not functional and are even arbitrary, depending on the society.
You do need concepts in order to thing, however you don't need words in order to think. You can know a concept without having a word for it. It is very hard to communicate such concept to other people (unless it is concrete like "bread") but you can think about it yourself.
alright, you got yourself a subscriber.
Very clear explanation. Thanks a lot.
Why this channel is so underratted
such a good video ...why there isn't much viewer
It depends on the courses they take in universities. Hehe
Very very help full. Í have become very interested in language in last years, and This información i have Been waiting, looking for, thank you
Minute 5:10, Actually, that's the mystery of human ability to learn a language. We somehow "know" that the sound "bread" means a concept, not just the piece of bread being referred to at a given time.
thanks...clear expalnation...waiting for some lectures on post-structuralism and deconstruction
It's a tracking process that redefines post structuralists definition of conceptually based reality of the other-at-hand in their being-there by reversing the structure of reality into emergence based processes that reduce their theoretical philosophy of the other-at-hand in their personal horizon, that's trying to fuse them in temporal subdivisions. So it's like anti-Cartesian dualism. It's hard. Harder than getting an actual degree, masters and PhD.
Such channels are a rich source of knowledge,but I have a requisite if you don't mind. I'm a student under graduation therefore, I have to make a monograph on a sociolinguistics issue .can you guys provide me with any idea to work on please? . thank you in advance
dear prof Gujsbers, thanks for the amazing lecture. I have a question:
your lecture about Saussure's linguistic structuralism ends to a point where the linguistic structures are different for any language. Does it mean there are no universal structure behind language that Saussure supposes when he talk about LANGUE, not parole; or other structuralist says about DEEP structures behind the varieties of SURFACE structure of language/any human expression?
thank you
Since language is a "social fact", the structures who structure languages are social. The concept of universal language supposes a kind of biologic way of thinking, when we say "all humans has the same organ". This happened when Chomsky come around.
Then how can a deaf person think provided that "“The Limits of my Language mean the limits of my world” is 100% true, what language do they use when thinking by themselves ?
They think (and dream!) in sign language - if they know one. If they fail to acquire any language in due time (the critical period of language acquisition) they will struggle on the conceptual level (i.e. their thinking will be indeed limited to non-verbal concepts and e.g. conceptualising abstraction or highly scientific concepts which require special terminology will be very compromised if not impossible).
Amazing video, thank you so much! Very clear and rich.
Nice lecutres. They are very clear! I just have one question about this one: if we can only think of things which we have words for, then how was language invented?
i dont know man
We can only think of things which we have concepts for. And for those concepts we assign words. That's how language was invented.
Can anyone provide the link for the video lecture on postmodernism that he mentions at the end?
It is an eaxtraordinary lecture.
very inspiring sir.....i find it a very tough concept
Loved it.
You are fantastic. Thank you so much.
Thank you for this very informative vid.
Very nice.
Very helpful for my upcoming project. Thank you so much for the explanation.
The best explanation! Thank you!
Is thinking not possible without a language ?
Commonly, we’ve been taught to think that language is an expression of thought, but indeed that presupposition is backward. Language acts as the building blocks, the very structure of thought. I’m thinking in the next video, they’ll lead you into Derrida which will deconstruct all this.
Superrbb.. 😍😍
But I have a doubt, what about the structure in the real world, the texture and taste of the objects, the sound, smell etc. they don't have any part?? 🤔😅
Yes, this is a good point.
@@ioanagrancea6091 🤜🏻🤛🏻
Thank you so much for this video!!!
Thanks your videos are top class!
can someone teach me whats structuralism approach is 😭
really good explanation, thanks!
Thank you
if a concept can only be identified within its position in a wider structure of other concepts how come Augistine could talk about nothing but "bread"; I think he should not be able to talk at all since the concept "bread" he acquired or developed standing in a vacum (lacking a position in a structure).
7:01 when baby for the first time says "mama " = (the only sound that she knows), does she not refer to her mam? she uses the sound "mama" for all kinds of things?!
No, the baby uses the word to refer to her mother. But the parents, relatives i.e. people surrounding the baby do not stop at teaching the baby the word mama. They teach it the word papa, aunty, grandma, so on. Or else later the baby could have associated the word mama with all women around him, or all who put it to bed, all who provide it food, etc. The baby, as it grows up, uses the word mama only for mother and not for its mother or someone else's mother because it has learned the difference between mama and papa, mama and aunty, in fact, even the difference between mama (a salutation, address) and mother (the common noun).
I'l give u an example - in India, where families used to be large with siblings and cousins living in dame household, and in my native language Bengali (one of the many Indian langs) words we use to address our father's sister, mother's sister, uncle's wife all have the suffix "ma" (word meaning both mama & mother) added to them, coz bringing up children was more of a combined thing in big households, so all these sereval woman relatives were mother figures. When a baby in such a family learns the word ma, simultaneously it is also taught the other terms with suffix -ma, and hence cam differentiate between the concepts (and people too) of biological mother & other mother like figures in the household.
Although, may be babies do use few words for other concepts that they do not yet have learnt words for. For example, when parents teach babies the words for parts of their body like nose, feet, hands, etc - u will sometimes see babies repeat the same word for all of these - coz may be they have learnt how to say "nose" & think that when an adult touches its body and says "what is this" that means the sound "nose". It takes time for babies to say different words when parent's touch their different body parts & ask "what is this".
just amazing.
Thank you Sir
nice
Bread 👍
very helpful
sorry; I meant vacuum.
Excellent, but that's not how you pronounce St. Augustine in English.
You are just like Jesus
bread
bread
bread
There is no such thing as "a bread". There's a piece of bread, a loaf of bread, or just bread. It is an uncountable noun. If you are teaching English, one would think you'd use proper English yourself.
really great stuff but how to get gf?
Amazing lecture by a guy who looks like Jesus