Originally posted by hotbakedtater
It is a scientific fact that multilingualism keeps the aging brain more active.
It is also scientific fact that there are a variety of other exercises, activities and mental attentions that could provide a similar benefit, that of
continued and varied brain activity.
My opponent's assertion that a common language will inflect society with homogeneity neither accepts various other aspects of human social
interaction nor suggests anything beyond her opinion that peace and stability will result from such.
Indeed, homogeneity suggests that there is a greater likelihood that peace and stability would result as any social deviance from accepted protocol
would be met with social alienation and suspicion.
With one common language, you also no longer have diversity, being driven out of existence is the result of suffering extinction. Instead of the
beauty and melody of a variety of languages, once a common language is instituted, say good bye to diversity, and hello to homogeneity.
Again, there is nothing here more than opinion.
We can see the benefits of a common language on a smaller scale...what if all of the members of a tribe spoke different languages? Certainly they
would not be able to communicate effectively and the needs of each individual would suffer as they would not be procured in an efficient manner, if at
Common language is a necessity for communication and is required for effective social interaction. Applied on a greater scale, surely the benefits
would also bear out to the greater population.
We have all observed little children, who for some reason, decide they want to speak their own language. This is common among twins, and the proper
term for the concept is idioglossia.
Certainly an interesting phenomena and something I had not known (I'll thank my opponent for helping me with my "learning something new for the
day"). But Individual variations within individual relationships is idiosyncratic to the relationship and has no bearing on the capacity of an
individual to communicate within the larger social stratum using a preset and determined language.
A simple proof for the irrelevancy, though interesting, of the above example is multi linguists. Having the capacity to speak French and English does
not necessarily prevent successful communication in either language.
Again, I would like to state that a common language does not
denote "only language". The necessity to communicate directly using a pre
determined language would
increase the capacity for peace and stability.
Likewise, peace and stability necessarily require a common language as communication is necessary for efficient interaction.
In fact, let us take a look at the etymology of "communication".
late 14c., from O.Fr. comunicacion (14c., Mod.Fr. communication), from L. communicationem (nom. communicatio), noun of action from communicare "to
share, divide out; communicate, impart, inform; join, unite, participate in," lit. "to make common," from communis (see common).
The bolded says a lot right there, in my opinion. Commonality begets communication...
This tells me that regardless of the forced implementation of one common language, it is human nature to want to create our own secret language, even
children do it!
Socratic Question #1 - Is the learning of a language by a child, the common language of a household, "forced implementation of one common
Though the concept of one common language may indeed pass, one common border did not, nor do we have one common country or one common skin color, or
one common religion.
Socratic Question #3 - Do we have a common world?
All a common language would accomplish is that the enemy knows what we are saying.
I don't think that anyone here is saying that world conflicts are going to be resolved over night or even soon. But I am sure that peace and
stability would preclude an 'enemy'...certainly though, I agree that there is a long way to go prior to peace and stability being even possible.
However, I am certain that in order for peace to be possible, a common language, the capacity to directly communicate with anyone at any given time,
would be a necessity.
I wanted to state that I cannot see many people getting behind paying higher taxes to teach future generations a common language,
And no one wants to pay taxes for war they don't want either. I think given the option, any progress to peace would be much better accepted than
sending our young men and women to fight for a corporate motivated war for resource.
a global endeavor of this magnitude would be classed as far more than minimal in the cost department!
Socratic Question #4 - Per the above quoted directly preceding this question, why would the cost be 'far more than minimal'?
Now, my Socratic question #1: What good does it do to implement a common language, in the name of peace and security as per the theme, when we still
have borders and different leaders and religions and races, the true causes of war and suffering in the world?
I would think very much good would result from a common language. How better to communicate the diversity of culture and experience than by a pre-set
standard for communication?
As well, I think that a common language does not mean that differences in nationality, social hierarchy, religion, race et cetera would be wasted,
looked down upon or even suffer homogenization.
All that we are looking for is a means to communicate more efficiently so that conflict can be minimized and prevented.
I now turn the debate back over to hotbakedtater...