The Grasp Of Language

For all its advantages, language is far from the grandest example of human achievement.  Indeed, the presence of developed languages is an obvious indicator of social sophistication, but it is hardly a sign of anything much more than a communicative tool with utilitarian benefits.  The grasp of language is not anywhere near the ultimate foundation of human knowledge and cognition, as both exist apart from and prior to the very existence or usage of language.

After all, a state of total unfamiliarity with every developed language--or even the complete inability to use spoken language--would not doom someone to be incapable of reasoning or understanding their mental states or sensory perceptions.  It would simply prohibit them from using words to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions to other non-telepathic beings.  The difference is enormous!

A hypothetical person who could not utter words would not be adrift in stupidity or confusion any more than someone who can speak. They could still remember, reflect, and reason; they could still have thoughts, emotions, and sensory experiences.  Language may aid some people in introspectively analyzing their experiences, and it certainly allows people who would otherwise only be able to communicate through gestures or other actions to more precisely explain themselves.  What it does not do is grant the ability to reason.

Yes, some degree of intelligence is required to invent or use any language, no matter how "primitive" or comparatively shallow a language is to another.  However, just as the use of eloquent speech does not prove that someone is a thoroughly or deeply rational person--many eloquent speakers are no less prone to fallacies and inept worldview construction than more "ordinary" communucators--the lack of articulate speech or speech itself does not mean a being is unintelligent.

Language has the capacity to facilitate the identification of certain categories as some people think to themselves, and to deny this is to embrace error.  At the same time, while established languages can provide a framework that aids personal reflection even apart from a social context, they are not responsible for the human intellect or for human self-awareness.  Both of these components of human consciousness are the cornerstones of thought, not any linguistic construct.