> Speech is not merely a conduit for the transmission of ideas, [...] but a generative activity that enhances thinking.
Maybe. Speech does make an idea more concrete. But is the spoken formulation of an idea persistent enough that you can examine it closely from multiple angles and depths to fully assess its validity? Even the written word often lacks the precision needed to ensure that the necessity, sufficiency, and incontrovertibility of an idea has been addressed in full. An idea spoken aloud is but writ on the wind.
When talking to myself, I often find I'm focusing on the best single view on my pet notion, embellishing its strengths rather than demerits. I need the means to formulate a more tangible formula, like a written bulleted list of plusses and minuses. Only then am I likely to reveal and redress the chinks in my idea's armor. And speaking to myself aloud won't do that.
Maybe. Speech does make an idea more concrete. But is the spoken formulation of an idea persistent enough that you can examine it closely from multiple angles and depths to fully assess its validity? Even the written word often lacks the precision needed to ensure that the necessity, sufficiency, and incontrovertibility of an idea has been addressed in full. An idea spoken aloud is but writ on the wind.
When talking to myself, I often find I'm focusing on the best single view on my pet notion, embellishing its strengths rather than demerits. I need the means to formulate a more tangible formula, like a written bulleted list of plusses and minuses. Only then am I likely to reveal and redress the chinks in my idea's armor. And speaking to myself aloud won't do that.