Seeing through Sentences in your Head

Jeff CarreiraBlog Posts, Philosophical Inquiry4 Comments

One of the things that the study of philosophy reveals is the profound relationship between the language that we use and our perception of what is real. We don’t have to look too deeply into philosophy before we begin to realize that our knowledge about anything is constructed in language and is always found in the form of sentences in our heads. Without language it seems that we cannot have knowledge about anything.

Think about it for a few minutes. Look around you and ask yourself what you know about what you see. You will find yourself generating a list of sentences. “The wall is flat. The sky is blue. The person is looking at me.” What you know will come to you in sentences. Now try to conjure up some knowing about the thing in front of you that does not come in a sentence. Go ahead try it.

What you find when you try to conjure up knowing outside of language is that you can’t do it. You can experience things outside of language, you can even experience knowing outside of language, but that is different from knowing about. I can experience the size of the building in front of me, but to turn that experience into something I know about the building, I have to turn it into a sentence. What we know about, we know about in sentences. We often don’t recognize this and we assume that we know things directly, but that isn’t necessarily true.

If we don’t consider this carefully, we will falsely assume that we are seeing reality as it actually is and not through a filter of language. Language does not act like a mirror, reflecting to us a perfect depiction of reality; it acts like a filter, it makes us see reality in particular ways. The way language is constructed and the popular usage of language at any given time in history and in any given culture on earth will create a different perception of what is real.

Our knowledge about the world comes to us through language – it is not direct knowledge; it is mediated and the medium through which it comes is sentences. Many of our difficulties come when we confuse our knowing about things with the reality of the way things are. This is what Wilfred Sellers was getting at with his conception of the myth of the given and what William James meant by vicious intellectualism. James spoke directly to this in The Varieties of Religious Experience in his discussion about what serves the aims of religion.

Knowledge about a thing is not the thing itself… If religion be a function by which either God’s cause or man’s cause is to be really advanced, then he who lives the life of it, however narrowly, is a better servant than he who merely knows about it, however much. Knowledge about life is one thing; effective occupation of a place in life, with its dynamic currents passing through your being, is another.

If knowing what is real is important to us, then we have to deconstruct how our current perception is being shaped by the sentences in our heads. This is why philosophy is not a luxury and why we need to think about how we think.

Join me on Sunday, December 8 from 11am to 5pm.
For 6 hours of radical philosophical inquiry that you participate in from home.
FIND ALL THE DETAILS HERE.

Philosopphy virtual seminar

Discover a profound recognition of awakened consciousness with this
FREE 6-part program.
Secrets of Profound Meditation
6 Spiritual Insights That Will Transform Your Life

Image

The Mystery School for a New Paradigm

Members Circle
Ongoing Guidance and Support for Artists of Possibility who want to share their deepest wisdom and live a vibrant and profoundly inspired spiritual life.
Join
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim T
Jim T
6 years ago

I’m not so convinced of this post. Ok, I’m convinced that we do a lot of our thinking with words, so it’s definitely appropriate to look at this. BUt I’m not convinced that ALL knowledge is expressed through language for us. I’m a software developer, but I do not develop software by stringing together sentences or program statements, I understand the code as a shape and a flow – and I write that flow down. When I read someone else’s code, I don’t “grok” a piece of code until I have converted that shape and flow in place. More generally,… Read more »

Jeff Carreira
6 years ago
Reply to  Jim T

Hello Jim,
I agree with you. I was being tricky here, setting up my next post. I am in this one talking only about “knowledge-about” things. Next I will talk about Knowledge of things…which is more akin to “groking” and intuition. And this distinction is one that is essential to American Philosophy it turns out. Stay tuned…

Daniel Veritas
Daniel Veritas
6 years ago

Aldous Huxley would agree. Describing an object with language creates two things, the object and the viewer. In reality, there is only one thing and that is the Mind At Large; the infinite source of all existence in the universe. Language is fuel for the ego, which is the root case of suffering. Good post.

Mo Riddiford
3 years ago

An essential post thankyou.
However, living as I do in the middle of multilingual Europe, it’s relevant to mention the fact of being monolingual or not. If you have more than one language to play with, your flexibility and also distance from any word’s form is greatly enhanced. In other words, for a multilingual person anything can always be described in more than one way.
If you don’t see the significance of this, then may I humbly suggest more time spent deeply immersed in a second language?