Thinking Precedes Writing And Reason Precedes Thinking

Since reading and writing have become far more prominent in modern cultures as a whole, the belief that either or both of these things are necessary for explicitly philosophical or practical knowledge has become popular.  Ignoring the host of things one must already understand at least on an indirect level in order to even use language, with use of language itself already being a prerequisite to the creation or reading of even the smallest sentence, someone who believes this is true is doing little more than riding a popular ideological trend or indulging in personal delusions.  It is not even always hard to find people who think that the ability to read and write grants them some epistemological advantage or, more inanely, the ability to explore epistemology.

I have heard one person (a client for a job of all people) talk about reading, and writing by extension, as if it literally grants people free will and the ability to understand concepts and reason things out.  No, anyone who actually tries could look to reason and from there not only prove to themself some things about reason itself, but also some things about their own existence and experiences as a conscious being, which could lead to understanding at least foundational conceptual and experiential facts about sensory perceptions--like the fact that seeing or hearing something does not even prove that one is seeing or hearing external things to begin with.

The fool who thinks one must write or read in order to have knowledge has not directly realized that, to name just one example, one must already exist and be able to contemplate one's sensory perceptions on at least a practical one (even if there is no intentional effort to rationalistically analyze them) to read or write as much as a single page.  Reading and writing alike cannot be the start of epistemology whatsoever; it is in fact outright stupid to overlook how thoughts and at least some level of other knowledge are inescapably required to even understand language in order to write or read something oneself or someone else has produced.

It is impossible to know how to read and write without familiarity with at least one language, and, more importantly, it is impossible to create or learn a language without the ability to grasp reason and understand concepts.  In other words, no one can read or write without thoughts and reliance on reason.  It is utter folly to think that reading and writing are what ground or bring knowledge.  Thinking inevitably precedes and underpins all linguistic activities, from thinking using words to having conversations to reading to writing, and a grasp of the laws of logic is necessary to even be able to understand thoughts and concepts.

Some things can be known by immediate reflection, like introspective states of mind.  Some things can be known without even focusing on one's own mental experiences, but on what logically follows or does not follow from all sorts of concepts.  If something that one is reading or writing, whether or not it needed experiential prompting to bring up the issue, cannot be proven via logical deduction or introspective reflection, it is ultimately unprovable and thus worthless as a belief.  All knowledge without exception hinges on reason--the laws of logic--in an epistemological and metaphysical sense.  The very ability to read and write does not grant the ability to wield reason, introspect, or understand plenty of concepts.