»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The State of Nature
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The State of Nature |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Daniel Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," p.478. This is the world without language. |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Agreed the world is not a nice place (which also tends against Einstein's "it's not malicious" arguement) but I'm not sure I'd make the statement "without language" Brad -- perhaps without written langauge would be more accurate -- but I'm not sure why you've used language to draw the distinction -- unless you're reckoning back to the "when thoughts and words are bygone" thread? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And to think that for all of these years I've been taking it personally. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And perhaps this is why I'm not my brother's keeper too Karen? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yep, I was, but I still think the big difference is language, not something we have beyond, above, or behind it, but language itself. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Are you suggesting a correlation between infanticide and the ability to converse? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yes. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're stretching it, Brad. Based on the evidence you've presented, I could as easily believe it's because we have less body hair. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Is it not that we perceive the difference between what is -- that is to say -- the state of nature -- and what is possible. That we can be, even should be -- more? It isn't language or even thought that distinguishes us -- it is what we do with it. But also -- I think knowing the difference between the two (reality and ideality) brings dreadful consequences. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (01-05-2003 11:22 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Of course it's a stretch. But what I want to do (as soon as I can get my thoughts organized) is to use something Derrida said about all language, everything we say, being a kind of 'promise' and combine that with a Davidsonian twist. Davidson takes the idea of truth as fundamental to learning a language, the two go hand in hand, and from that he derives an account of meaning. In a sense, in order to speak a language (in an inner sense and when we talk to other people), the very idea of some kind of ethical system becomes, not just incidental, but necessary for any language to work. The reason I think this and don't worry about the loss of body hair or the development of bipedalism, is the creation of an "I" and of "others" far beyond that of an animal's instinctive reaction to others. In a nutshell, I also want to discuss Fractal 007's problem with evolution. If we are evolutionary creatures, if we have a selfish gene, why isn't it a war of all against all? The argument, following this description from Dennet, is that it is but what tones it down is the development of language as a social transformative process that, among other things, creates the idea of the self, the idea of others having a self, and that these selves are the same type of thing. So, the move to the semantic world involves the creation of an ethical system by necessity, but while the explanation may be long and dreary, the proof is that we talk to each other as conscious agents. |
||
|
winston Member
since 2002-12-19
Posts 204NW of Eden |
Yes, I see your point. Well, good luck with that. "am a tourist not a terrorist, don't shoot, cause we are all on a journey to God" Michak |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
If you want to prove a correlation between infanticide and language Brad you’ll need to address two glaringly obvious facts. The first is that some humans who obviously possess the ability to communicate via language still commit infanticide. The second is that some animals that have no discernible language conspicuously don’t. You could argue that language acts to suppress such behaviour, that language makes infanticide more unlikely but I think you may be looking in the wrong direction. Language may very well nurture the feelings of self, such recognition may also contribute or allow the recognition of self in others but a clear connection is difficult to prove and seems more likely to produce even more pronounced tendencies towards anti-social behaviour, a more acute and easier path towards selfishness. Why do male lions kill the offspring of dethroned dominant males while hyenas and humans on the whole don’t? Language can only be the reason if hyenas and humans can both be proved to possess language and it can be proved that lions do not. I think there are more obvious and more likely reasons - social organisation, reliance and expediency all allow the existence of selfishness while suppressing, or even completely reversing the necessity towards infanticide. Strangely enough the move towards socialisation can also offer a reason why language developed in the first place, in such a scenario infanticide would have already been abandoned by our ancestors as a bad idea. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (01-06-2003 03:54 PM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
In addition, I know no animals whose ability to kill has been vaunted to the level of using weapons of mass destruction. Language, in the long run, seems to allow for the more poignant expression of our morality, or immorality. While I agree with you that a moral system and language are inseparable, I do not see language as the source of moral awareness, but as the vehicle of it's didactic expression. In short, we recieved the ability to talk and thus to talk of morality, from a common source. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-06-2003 04:38 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Stephanos, It’s true that chimpanzees don’t use intercontinental ballistic missiles but isn’t that simply because they don’t possess the intellect to produce them. Put another way if a chimp is capable of killing another chimp with a rock would it not be equally capable of killing it with am M16 if it had the ability? I’m not sure that morality and language are as inseparable as you make out, I can see where the justification and the philosophy of morality require language but morality itself is, in my view, a completely different animal closer perhaps to an unavoidable accident than a constructed system. The evidence to support this comes in several parts the basis of which is closely related to Brads original topic, whether language created morality. First you need to dissect morality and agree a model that defines a moral act, lets take an easy one, a human female finds a human baby, the options are to kill it, to leave it or to take it home and look after it. The morally correct thing to do would be the latter, if the human female took the child home we have the definition of a moral act. Now replace the word human with the word hyena, is the female hyena acting in a morally correct manner by taking the baby hyena home? We could say no, the hyena is exhibiting selfish tendencies acting in a manner that strengthens the hyena pack, with more hyenas in the pack the chances of finding food and the survival of the hyena group increase. Now replace the word hyena with the word human in the previous explanation, did the human act in a morally correct way or is morality simply an affirmative reinforcement of a pragmatic or expedient act depicted in language? If morality is pragmatic expediency writ large several things become clearer, that selfishness can exist and flourish within a social group being the most obvious. We end up back with Brads statement that the self is aware of the selves (the group) but from a different angle, one which allows the selfishness of the self (individual) to be beneficial to the selves (the social group). Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Phaedrus, I don't want to get into a tit for tat, animal for animal debate (though why not? It might be fun for its own sake.), but hyena females, don't cross suckle their young, hyena males aren't allowed near the nest (at least for this species): http://sailfish.exis.net/~spook/hyenatxt.html The reason I don't want to get into different animal type of bahaviors is the question isn't that animals exhibit a variety of different behavior (they do), but whether they have the ability to judge the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Pragmatically, of course they can. If it hurts, it's bad, if it's helpful it's good, but can an animal make the choice between a moral sacrifice for the clan and a mistake? Can they intentionally make a moral decision? Where does a moral decision come from? Dennet says that we can't call it murder for they know not what we do, but should we equate infanticide between human beings and lions? Should we send a lion to jail for this act? The mistake most of us make when it comes to higher mammals is not that what many mammals do is ostensibly similar to many of the things we do (they are), but that we apply the same meaning, the same sense of charity (the benefit of the doubt), and not the sense of responsibility that we also ascribe to other humans. Dennet said, "Because they know not what they do." I suspect, "Because we know not what they do." But we can know what other humans do. It is irrelevant that we get this wrong sometimes, we act on the whole as if this were true. We ascribe intent to anybody who speaks a language and make our decisions accordingly. How do we do this? We translate from their language to our language (language here is generally defined, it's not just words, but the assumption of using a language is a given in order to give this ascription.). If we were wrong most of the time, we would be dead. So, Phaedrus, you've correctly read my argument. The introduction of language compels some type of ethical system for any individual who speaks a language, but that individual is not compelled to follow every aspect of that ethical system. Stephan, The introduction of WMD doesn't change this attitude at all. If an animal were to use a WMD, even by accident, would they have the ability to feel remorse? One of the arguments that I'm sure you get all the time is the problem of evil, how can God allow for evil? But that's easy to explain for a non-believer if we define evil in terms of bad things happening (We just say it results from indifference in Nature and/or the indifference to other people rather than evil.). The question is reversed for the non-believer then. How do we account for genuine moral belief and action? If we fall back on evolution (that's just the way genes work), I think we're dodging the question (We're trading one cure-all answer -- that's the way God set things us -- with another -- that's the way evolution works). However, if we see or try to see what actually happens when two or more humans communicate, the necessary assumptions that we use to communicate to other humans (and then partially project on to animals and even things), we can see, I think, a basis for an ethical system beyond Nature and evolution. And one that's thoroughly down to earth even if I'm probably not smart enough to get enough complexity into it that any useful theory might need. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You pose some interesting questions Brad and I'm not saying that I disagree -- but I don't think that you think all the holes are filled in there.... Without going tit for tat -- the other state of nature is; A pride of lions, A gaggle of geese, A herd of buffalo, A flock of seaguls (um -- ok... bad choice) A pack of dogs, A school of fish... Tis perfectly natural (and evolutionary) for species to recognize it's own kind (else they wouldn't procreate) and cluster for common defense from predators. In order to live in communities these animals DO have a moral system (and a language) -- even if the only moral is don't mess around with the head lion. It's a moral system. If the language is as simple as a growl that anyone can understand in context means 'hey -- that's my bison meat' -- then it's language. This does hearken back to Einstein's point that morality only applies to us -- and not to God. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I think I agree with you here. Language enables us to preserve traditions for generations. To, basically, establish precedents to guide our morality. This isn't to say that many if not all of our major decisions are not founded on self-interest. It merely suggests that our moral, ethical and legal traditions, preserved by language, impose limitations or consequences on us if our self-interests cross the established boundaries. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, Yes, that's definitely part of it. That also explains how written language would make us even more ethical. Though by saying that I don't mean to demean oral tradition. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
That's a mistake, written language doesn't make us more ethical in any basic sense, it expands, can expand but doesn't have to, the ethical bubble if you will. By ethical I mean, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In order for language to be understandable, one must translate one's own language (the idiolect) on to another's speech, you have to see them as you see yourself. My contention is that this is impossible, inconceivable, without some type of complex language. This is not the same thing as a group instinct though I have no problems in saying that only animals that group together could possibly have a language. The group instinct, in sheep, birds, wolves, ourselves, or whatever can be explained by a pre-linguistic type of triangulation. The actions of one individual are reactions to a two-fold process: the object or world (feed, flee, fight, or procreate) and the reaction of another of your species, but no conscious awareness of being part of a group need be conceded. This works fine with fish and birds, it may be a little more difficult to understand in higher mammals, but if accepted, it means we don't have to postulate some mysterious force for their actions. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hmmm.... I'm ready to make the call on this one now Brad -- I see where you're coming from -- but I think I'd have to flip it. An ethical/moral system is a necessity to survival -- the move to a semantic world helps to facilitate the ethical/moral system. The need for ethics is a precursor to language. It comes out of abstract thought -- and abstract thought is constructed without language. I'm sure of it. How many times a day do people look for, um, the, um... right word? They know what they want to say but have to encode it into language. Recent studies of dreams suggest the same. The reports that showed people dreamed in black and white back in the 50's yeilded dramatically different results at present -- people report dreaming in color -- psychologists suggest the reason was black and white film in the 50's influenced people to encode their dreams in black and white -- that they actually didn't have contextuality until the person wakes up and starts remembering/encoding the dream. 100% agreement that oral and written language expands the moral system -- why would there be a need for 'truth' without language? how does the system evolve if there isn't written language? |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Brad, The hyena example was not supposed to be a reflection of reality but a non-human alternative to highlight the possibility that morality may not be what it may seems. I picked it out of the air I could have used unicorn or dragon in that respect, I was aiming more at why one has to be a moral act and the other anything but. I suppose I could have found a more factual alternative, still can if you like.  My thinking is not a million miles from where LR is, with the obligatory couple of minor amendments.  I was a little worried about the “an ethical/moral system being necessary for survival” bit though if we’re not talking about the animal kingdom as a whole but in the context of human survival I can see the correlation. Ethics as a precursor to language is a little harder to swallow, I think one is definitely reliant or interconnected with the other but I think both stem from necessary social interaction. Ethics and language, as I see it, being both a consequences and a natural progression of socialisation but language requiring the additional prerequisite of mental capacity, the greater the capacity the more complex the possible communication system. I also agree 100% that oral and written language would tend to expand any moral system. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (01-09-2003 04:08 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Phaedrus I say that an ethical/moral system is a necessity to survival because one can exist in a clan without gossip -- but -- it would be hard for the clan to survive if the members were worried that when they went to sleep someone else in the cave was going to bash in their skull. Similar ethics are required for other species that group together -- although -- calling them ethics/morals is pretty darn close to anthropomorphizing their behaviour. I say that ethics/morals is a precursor to language because some anthropologists now believe the devopment of language was prompted by mothers needing a way to communicate to thier son's the fidelity or infidelity of their daughter's in law whilst the son was out on the hunt. It only makes sense -- if there is an ethical/moral system -- unless the whole clan is an eyewitness to an infraction how would they know about it? For the sole witness it's hard to communicate it to the rest of the clan without a language. I think the two are reticulant in development but the real survival need is for the ethics. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (01-09-2003 11:19 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
quote: Which seems to infer that ethics may not be required for species that don’t group together, so which is it all species require ethics or only those that group together? quote: Some people believe in the tooth fairy but without proof I’m still sceptical. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (01-10-2003 06:58 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: True on both counts. Anthropology, particularly paleoanthopology, relies on a combination of empirical research and speculation based upon the research -- considering as little as a decade ago it was thought that we descended from Neanderthals and that it is now more likely we were merely cousins is reason enough to preserve skepticism -- however -- even though the weatherman sometimes gets it wrong -- I check in the morning before I leave the house. Science is science -- some branches have to do more guessing than others -- but -- I'll give a tad more trust to people speculating in a highly organized process than in children believing in the tooth fairy. quote: Don't worry about it -- it's not going to be on the test. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (01-11-2003 01:04 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: From "Remarks" by Jacques Derrida in Deconstruction and Pragmatism p. 82. Believe it or not, I think we all agree with this. It does seem that everybody, so far, accepts that there is some relationship between the ethical and speaking a language. It seems a matter of which is logically prior. I have no problems with according women and the problem of paternity a special role (The Big Discovery as at least it used to be called.), but when I picture abstract scenarios like this, I generally picture the beginning of teaching as requiring the necessity of language. Animals learn but do they teach? Needless to say, I'm biased. I'm a little confused, however, by Phaedrus's point: quote: I don't think a species which doesn't group together requires anything resembling an ethical system. In fact, I don't think most species we define as gregarious require an ethical system. But I have to ask, what exactly are you talking about when you say ethics? For me, it has to be something that conflicts with evolutionarily involves characteristics (even though I accept that it was also created evolutionarily). For me, if it didn't, we wouldn't need language, and perhaps we wouldn't even need human consciousness. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Brad is obviously not a cat person. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Brad, I also think we’re all pretty much in agreement that language expands and enforces human ethics, your question about the interpretation of ethics - what I mean when I say ethics - is very valid to the point I was trying to get across, perhaps I should try to clarify. Your original post posited the possibility that language separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, you went even further and suggested that there is a direct correlation between language and infanticide. My point was that while it may be true that humans have the most complex form of language we are not unique when it comes to communication between individuals other species posses, and use, recognisable forms of language. If you accept that language exists in other species that exhibit tendencies towards infanticide a correlation between infanticide and language is untenable. We then had the introduction of the correlation between ethics and language, this is the biggest sticking point for me, there is a tendency to believe that only humans posses the capacity towards ethical and moral behaviour. This is where the definition of ethics becomes most important; my view is that ethics are nothing more than pragmatic socially expedient acts which are inherent in any social interaction. So can we say that only animals that live in groups posses ethics? Unfortunately I don’t think we can, once ethics are reduced to socially expedient acts we are faced with the problem that even those animals that don’t live in groups still interact on a social level with others of their species. At that point can they not be said to be displaying pragmatic socially expedient acts? The obvious conclusion is that all animals posses a form of ethics it's just that some display it to a greater degree and in greater degrees of complexity than others. Those animals that employ a language having the most complex, and humans, having the most complex language obviously possessing the most complex ethical system. Do you need a language to be ethical in this context? – No I don’t think you do. Under this definition of ethics it’s clear that the possession of ethics precedes language but that language increases the complexity of any existing ethical system. It also predicts that ethical acts will be more pronounced in species that live in social groups. I hope that clears up what I was trying to say. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (01-12-2003 08:01 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think the basic ethic (for survival) is one does not eat one's own species -- which may be why lawyers are often referred to as sharks (no offense to any lawyers out there -- just referencing the correlation). My favorite comment from pop psychologist Dr. Will Miller is "We're all just cannibals who haven't eaten each other yet -- because there's plenty of food." So I think it applies to whatever animals it applies to -- whether or not they group. Sharks don't really group as I understand it -- they are merely attracted by a common prey. I haven't the time to find a really good web site but this one http://www.ucalgary.ca/~bakardji/Language.html/ at least mentions the correlation between the development of vocal chords and the brain being 'hard wired' for langauge -- I don't think ethics is extra-evolutionary Brad -- common defense is sensical -- the basic ethics are probably as hard wired as the speech that's necessary to support them. I'm in fundamental agreement with Derrida's remarks Brad -- with the qualifier that I don't think the promise goes as far as to say 'believe me' -- sometimes it's only -- this is what I think.. or this is what I feel... so if that's the only promise -- then it's a correct assumption. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (01-11-2003 12:38 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Brad I keep getting a niggling feeling that Derrida is missing something, I don’t think he’s entirely wrong I just think he might be missing an opportunity based on scale and an old saying: Actions speak louder than words It could be said that Derrida’s statement reinforces this saying, actions being the fulfilment of the promise, but if we expand the promissory concept to include actions where complex language isn’t used or even available it may move us closer to understanding social interaction at all levels. An example might be useful at this point, btw I’m picking animals out of the air again here Brad. 1) Imagine two hunters, let’s call them Bob and Bill, they decide to go deer hunting. Once in the woods Bill tells Bob to go left round a clearing that contains a buck and that he will go right, when they’re both in position Bill rushes towards the buck which runs straight towards the waiting Bob. Let’s play that again, this time with a little more reality, after all the idea is not to spook the deer until both Bob and Bill are in position. 2) Once in the woods Bill signals to Bob that he should go left around the clearing and that Bob will go right, once in position Bill rushes towards the buck which runs straight towards the waiting Bob. I should mention that the deer escaped on both occasions, Bob in each case is a juvenile, this his first deer hunt, in each scenario Bill isn’t too concerned though, recognising the fact that Bob will learn quickly. If we take Derrida’s explanation of language the first example is easily explained, Bill promised that if Bob went left he’d go right and they would catch the deer. In the second the oral communication was missing but the promise still remains. The only other difference is that in the first case Bob and Bill were human, in the second they were lions. LR You may have a valid point regarding the nature of the communication, a promise doesn’t seem to have enough emphasis on social interaction and the active involvement of the individuals within the social context. It’s too one sided and too easily unfulfilled, all those promises would seem to infer a high level of failure to deliver, positive reinforcement is an important part of social binding if promises are broken on a regular basis wouldn’t that act to destabilise the group rather than reinforce it? If we move the emphasis to the target of the promise and look at the promise as more of a request for belief any negative results become the result of individuals decisions. The group remains untarnished - it isn’t the fault of the group that led to the failure it’s simply bad judgement of the individuals within the group. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (01-12-2003 07:49 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
