读过 Language in Thought and Action
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie is symbolic, but not wearing a necktie is equally symbolic. Parents and children have had bitter quarrels in recent years over hair styles-long, short, spiked, shaved. Such quarrels are not really about hair but about the symbolic meanings involved in how hair is worn.
Perhaps some of us would like to escape the complexity of human life for the relative simplicity of such lives as dogs and cats lead. But the symbolic process, which makes possible the absurdities of human conduct, also makes possible language and therefore all the human achievements dependent upon language. The fact that more things can go wrong with motor cars than with wheelbarrows is no reason for going back to wheelbarrows. Similarly, the fact that the symbolic process makes complicated follies possible is no reason to return to a cat-and-dog existence. To understand the symbolic process is to be able to use it to advantage; not to understand it is to remain forever its victim.引自第16页
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the beli...
The test of abstraction then is not whether they are " high-level" or "low-level" abstr...