Hi, Charles Myro here,
On the one hand it seems clear that without words we can't even ask the question: "is there thinking without words?" On the other hand if we assume words are necessary for thinking then we can never get beyond words to find out if there is such a thing as thought without words; kind of like Kant's thing in itself, which is inacessible to us and so is uncomfirmable by us.
Or maybe we can assume that words are not necessary for thought-perhaps mental pictures or some such may occur----but wait, this statement's in words, and it seems that I couldn't even have that thought without words; could we have mental pictures without the words "mental pictures"?; where does the word end and the thing begin?
Something tells me I will be chasing my tail in a moment and I'd better stop now.
Please let me know when you solve the issue, ok?

To me, words suggest communicable generalizations and semantic content. When we find a word from another language whose semantic content possesses a useful generalization, we adopt it. Furthermore, if it were just the words that we thought in, and not the semantic content of the words, then how would it be possible to learn new words in the first place?
With this in mind, the reason we use words to make plans is because we simply use words to link together the semantic content using a grammatical structure to show the relation of the content. It reminds me of Wittgenstein, who says that words and grammar work together to form an image of the world that we then see as corresponding to some state of affairs. We understand the image as well as the world, but often it is easier to arrange the image than it is the world itself. Hence, thinking in words allows us to arrange the image and find what state of affairs will correspond to it. We can do this in any way we want, so long as we symbolically represent the world and have relations between them that we can understand. This also helps us understand how new words help us understand the world better, they create a new image that we then see corresponding to the world and thus we develop a richer view of the world by enlarging our number of possible images of the world.
This is summary of course, but I think it compromises between the "we think exclusively in language" and "language is a byproduct" crowd because it still relies on the semantic content of the words and our ability to understand the semantic content prior to the linguistic element.

To quote another blogster, name of Comrade Ade (15 Minute Philosopher): words are messy. The Canadian linguist,Pinker, approaches this, in a round about way in some of his works. Words are what we humans have; what we use to try to make sense of relations and relationships---to get along with our families, friends and neighbors. But there are interminable misunderstandings and misinterpretations of meaning(s). Some of these are by accident-some are not. Personal agendas are causative in this regard. Frequently. Intentionally, or accidentally. We all know this, intuitively and experientially. As Wilber has said: and just so.
Languages are poignantly different; nuance is as varied as the gradations of colour in the rainbow. But people, emotions, agendas and expectations are largely the same, cultural differences notwithstanding.
If you noticed my spelling of the word colour, you might have thought I'm from England. You would have been wrong. You were only having an expectation based on experience or assumption. Words are worth a lot. Things are difficult with them. Things would be more so without.

How would you find out if words or language or concepts distort reality?
Once you presume that reality and language are separate and different things then it follows that if you stop thinking and speaking, just sit there, then that is reality.
Then start thinking and speaking again and see if the reality is different.
But how do you know whether reality includes words and concepts or not? What would tell you that what there is without words is reality but what there is with words is not reality?
How would you confirm one way or the other? Seems rather an assumption.
Seems to me that language, words, concepts etc., are
, if anything, part of our reality.
And on "semantic content": If a watusi describes a warthog and it is translated for me into english, it is not at all clear that the two descriptions are the same or even equivalent. Thus the basis for a common "semantic content" is very much dubitable. How would you show, for instance, that the "semantic content" is the same and it is just the "expression" of the content that is different or vice versa.
And Wittgenstein's theory of meaning or sense; that the structure of a statement somehow mirrors the structure of the world. How would one confirm that the world has the structure and its not just the words that have the structure?

The most important word One needs to define is truth.
Truth is One!
Be One too,
=

All of these questions, theories and postulations about words! Those fundamental fragments of human communication... I am not a Cartesian---haven't read much or M. Descartes' work. But I do recall something he said about those things relative v. those absolute.
He said, essentially, that some things are relative and some are absolute. And so, I offer this: some words we use are relative; some are absolute. So far, so good.
But, wait a minute. Descartes often contradicted himself---his ideas were confusing; his prose fraught with convoluted compound sentences which led to shaky conclusions. The Church was unhelpful, because he was obliged to adhere to its dogma, or be labelled: Heretic, and be censored (or worse). Still, his statement about relative v. absolute rings true.
At least, he got published before he died (didn't he?)
Pere Teilhard du Chardin was not so fortunate. But, then again, du Chardin did not bow to the power of the Church. Well. Here we are today; still arguing about what? Words. How quaint.

Decartes simplified the problem of truth in a place called Ulm, the town where the great problem solver Einstein was born. He rebooted like a computer his own self, Decartes' Method. The result was "I" the absolute, his true self. Unfortunately he couldn't deal with it and his thoughts grabbed him like a bad habit and pulled him back again too his as is ours most uncertain Ways. He found the truth, himself, and lost it again.
I have yet to find any One else past or present east or west to have grasped it All, if only for a fleeting moment.
Study Decartes, it may help you along the way!
=

I have read Descartes. Tried to understand him. Tried very hard. Failed. My loss, I guess. Obviously, I missed something. Or, perhaps, there was not so much to miss? Thanks, anyway, MJH. Your haiku-like comments are refreshing.

I came from New Ulm, I bet you didn't know that either?
Oh and, I found what they were looking for.
Truth is much more simple than thought.
=
MJA
Thanks for the great forum,
A philosopher is a true lover of truth.

...if I may suggest:
Rather than "Philosophy Talk ...the blog"
I think: "Philosophy Talk ...The Lyceum" has a better ring.
But then what are words worth anyway?
=

Words/language/paradigms do not distort reality. It just is what it is. If some of us want to re-arrange that, too freakin bad for the rest of us, who may not benefit from re-arrangements. But, then again, this is why we invented politics and religion, isn't it? Oh, please don't hit me with the divinity issue. Or The Jesus Incident. Or The Lazarus Effect Good night, Irene---good night. Frank Herbert and Robert Anson Heinlein, RIP.