I wrote in an earlier post that biggest problem with the 20th century was the overestimation of the importance of language.  I want to clarify that point.  

I am not opposed to language or to the philosophical importance thereof, per se.  My opposition is to linguistic humanism: the tendency to make language the dividing line between humans and other animals, with humans conceived of as in some sense higher than the other animals - though often with a kind of dark, tragic dignity, sometimes a kind of wistful longing for the supposed innocence of animals.  Sometimes this includes a belief that humans are in some sense "rational" while other animals are not - perhaps because humans think in terms of "concepts," which are thought of as in some sense impossible without language.  An obvious example would be Jean-Paul Sartre, who regarded animals as machines, or as he put it, "only a body," but humans as fundamentally different from machines, because of language:

"It remains always possible that the Other is only a body.  If animals are machines, why shouldn't the man whom I see pass in the street be one?  What I apprehend on this face is nothing but the effect of certain muscular contractions, and they in turn are the only the effect of a nervous impulse of which I know the course." (B&N, p. 224)

Later, in an interview, Sartre seemed to acknowledge his mistake:

"I know that animals have consciousness, because I can understand their attitude only if I admit
a consciousness. What is their consciousness? What is a consciousness that has no language?
I have no idea. Perhaps we will be able to determine that later on, but more will have to be
known about consciousness." (Schlipp, 1991)





Schilpp, P.A. (1991). The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre (Library of Living Philosophers) (Vol. 16). La Salle, IL: Open Court.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more