Hmmm... you have given me something to think about. The "world of being" and the "world of becoming." I didn't think of the latter as bound by languages before.
Hmmm... you have given me something to think about. The "world of being" and the "world of becoming." I didn't think of the latter as bound by languages before.
Perhaps through "concepts" rather than "languages"? You and I speak different languages. If we translate them, we have roughly the same concept of a forest. A deer knows this forest better than we do - but has no concept of it. We don't know how it perceives the forest...
I think concepts are linked to the world of being. It's a general notion about something which is essentially the same. Like,
Forests have trees.
One doesn't have to possess linguistic skills to know that.
Where things differ?
Subjective experiences - those make the world of becoming which is unique for all regardless of the languages spoken or not.
Language is just a tool that enriches the experience; it's congnition that unlike concepts is dynamic and ever evolving based on individual's experiences.
Just my two cents. I wrote this as I thought. My brain is not philosophical like ty-ty. 😀
Don't underestimate your brain ;-))
But the deer doesn't think forests have trees. Because it doesn't know any trees. It doesn't recognise big green things either. Because it has neither colours nor words. It doesn't actually think either. Perhaps, certainly even, it feels cool temperatures or shade or a hiding place. But these are all just our words for something that we define for ourselves.
Despite the latest technology, we will probably never know how the deer perceives something. Because this also relates to our concepts.
Like you, I am certain that the forest is there. Ty-ty sees it differently ;-))
Maybe it recognizes them as something else - food?
By trees I meant everything - bushes, plants, leaves...
Yes, but neither has the concept of "food". It instinctively bites into things, chews them, swallows them and thus survives. It is not aware of any of this. It is no less real for that, but it no longer has anything to do with our perception. Because even "biting", "chewing" and "swallowing" are concepts bound to ideas.
Ok leave the deer, we can say the same about human babies...only that their cognitive skills develop with time whether they learn to communicate or not.
Interesting. Nowadays it is difficult to imagine a child who cannot communicate. If it is hearing or speech impaired, there are plenty of other means of communication. But let's try to imagine such a "wolf child". A baby who has never had contact with people in childhood. Thanks to its physique, it perceives in a human way, but has no conceptualisation of it. Or a severely autistic person who has their very own perception anyway... Do they have much in common with ours?