Perhaps the main reason why we are so strongly
inclined to talk of the head as the locality of our thoughts is
this:– the existence of the words
“thinking” and “thought” alongside
of the 11.
words denoting
(bodily) activities, such as writing, speaking,
etc. makes us look for an activity, different from
these but analogous to them, corresponding to the word
“thinking”. When words in our ordinary
language have prima facie analogous grammars we are
inclined to try to interpret them
analogously; i.e. we try to make the analogy
hold throughout.‒ ‒ ‒ We say, “The thought
is not the same as the sentence; for an English and a French
sentence, which are utterly different, can express the same
thought”. And now, as the sentences are
somewhere, we look for a place for the thought.
(It is as though we looked for the place of the king of which
the rules of chess treat, as opposed to the places of the various
bits of wood, etc., the kings of the various
sets.) ‒ ‒ ‒ We say, “surely the thought
is
something; it is not nothing”; and all one
can answer to this is, that the word “thought”
has its
use, which is of a totally different kind from
the use of the word “sentence”.