if we did not have language...

Hoatzin, thank you for actually putting some thought into this.

First off, let me clarify that I don't think we should remove language (as if that would be possible.) I love language. I love learning new ones, and I especially love the understanding that is achieved through being able to speak different ones. I am merely curious as to whether our world would be more peaceful if we did not have such an easy way of deceiving, arguing and aggravating one another.

A lot of arguments, fights, wars, and broken hearts occur because of simple misunderstandings of words and language. I think a great deal of war especially could be avoided if there were no words with which to create hostility. Sure, it would still be possible to do so through action, but the realization of the terrible consequences would be greater as they would be more in-your-face. Example, a soldier might talk about killing someone as if it's no big thing, but to actually do it is something else entirely.

The heart of my argument is that words enable us to lie - although you fairly corrected me; that it makes lying and deceit easier. (Although would you not agree that this is not a good thing?) But my argument is also about the horrible consequences that can come from minor misunderstandings, mispronounciations and mistranslations. Something intended to be completely innocent and harmless can be taken greatly offensive, especially between different cultures. (Also true for action, but I believe moreso for words.)

Another point I am trying to make is that, to use a cliche, action speaks louder than words. Action is truth - if you do something, there is no doubt about it. It was done. If you say something, what have you really done but express an intention, opinion, whatever?

All right, I completely agree with what you're saying about person X saying one thing and person Y interpreting that one thing in a different way, legitimately so. But if you would show instead of speak, I believe the chance of misinterpretation would be lesser.

And yes, translation of a kind definitely occurs within a language. Depending on context, choice of words, the speaker/listener's definition of any given word, etc, the intended message can be very, very different from the actual message received.

My main beef with language and words is that it makes deceit so simple, which in turn makes it more appealing,(to some people) and its potential for disaster due to misunderstandings. Although I suppose you could argue that that's just the nature of the world; some people are malicious and shit happens.

I am very glad we have language, however, and I could argue the other side of this argument much better than I can the one I am. Language enables us to do a lot of wonderful things, like read books, exchange opinions and ideas, etc.

red, I don't think those people deceive as much as they "show". Although they would certainly better equipped for wordless deception than most others.

 

Thing is, I don't think you could "show" effectively without language. Say I show you this picture:



How do you know what I'm actually trying to draw your attention to?

There was a writer talking about narration in film whose name I've forgotten (referenced by Michel Chion early on in Audio-Vision, if you wanna look it up) who disputed the possibility of a "neutral" voice, or the desirability of it. I feel this would be the same with showing. A person is placed within what is being shown, either by themself or by the person doing the showing. It is not even necessarily consciously deceptive in intent, but one can only see an event from one perspective at a time. Check out Rashomon to see this in action.

 

No, we would be apes.

Not that we are not apes now, but we would not have culture.