"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

[Chilli.s]

Goodluck this afternoon gorski, hope it goes well.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Point about the Tractatus was that at the time of writing it, W thought he'd basically 'finished' philosophy. Finished it off, more like, given that he was demonstrating that there's basically nothing to say. I read the T as a dismemberment, logical statement by logical statement, of the very idea of metaphysics. There's no such thing, beyond the statement that existence is, that experience is. That's it.

I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion. It sounds like a Zen interpretation of existence, which I agree with.

The Ten Oxherding Pictures

What I take issue with, is the egocentric statement: "I have determined that experience is, existence is. Therefore, everyone else should give up their spiritual quests of whatever form, because I have found the answer."

Wittgenstein might not make this statement; but Unger appears to make it.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I am answering everything I possibly can - as can be seen easily, if one ants to be fair - but right now I am due back to the hospital, for post-op assessment and all... Will answer in more detail later on, when I come back to my senses...

Best wishes for your hospital post op...
I'm into hospital tomorrow too....this thread has taken my mind off it.
One big plus for philosophising

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion. It sounds like a Zen interpretation of existence, which I agree with.

The Ten Oxherding Pictures

What I take issue with, is the egocentric statement: "I have determined that experience is, existence is. Therefore, everyone else should give up their spiritual quests of whatever form, because I have found the answer."

Wittgenstein might not make this statement; but Unger appears to make it.

I was careful not to include any 'I' in my post for this reason. Can't speak for Unger.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also best wishes gorski.

May you be back here arguing furiously very soon.

And to you bubbles.

 

[gorski]

One of the things that separates us from animals is our capacity for independent thought. Gorski.

Welcome to my 'hood, m8...

Another one is our ability to hold a number of contrasting and oppositional thoughts at the same time.

I am waiting for LBJ to come in a say, "Ach, but wait a minute, we have seen plenty of animals who appeared rather confused, who lost their bearings and eventually their lives because they were just like this, you know..."

You seem critical that posters don't agree with you.

No, not that automatic - if they have a better solution I am fine with it!

You base your question in purely philosophical metaphysical terms...

Nonsense, this just shows you do not understand these things at all - metaphysics has nothing to do with me or vice versa, thanx...

... and you get annoyed when posters decide to discuss more than philosophy and metaphysics.

Nonsense, I posted SJ's lecture, haven't I? It's just that he knows his limits and concludes with some care and attention, as opposed to most posters here...

Have you read this book ?

No. My pet hate, so to speak, "analytical 'philosophy'"... Bleeeuurrghhh!!!

And in an interview...

"Even though Wittgeinstein is perhaps the most widely admired philosopher of the twentieth century, at least amongst mainstream philosophy, nobody really pays attention to his main conclusion: you can’t really do anything when you do this stuff, you should stop it. He basically said you should try to be a therapist for young people who are starting out in philosophy, to get them away from the field and turn them into something more useful. No more of this fruitless, self-deluding endeavor."
See more at: 3quarksdaily: Philosophy is a Bunch of Empty Ideas: Interview with Peter Unger

Thanx! Must go get my younger son, will have a look at it later...

 

[gorski]

It is always highly problematic to give short-hand answers, contextless and "hanging" in the air, especially to some here who seem highly opinionated, regardless of how much they have actually studied a subject or if they feel rather inert in terms of considering other tradition's attempt at answering a question... But - against my better judgement - I shall try, since I said I will do (something)... So, here goes "something"...

So, travelling forward in our species’ timeline, as jaw muscles weaken, cooking skills increase, brain size increases, mental agility increases, at what point do we start being "human"? Is there a point, gorski, at which you can say we cease being animal? Were our weak-jawed, cooking, predecessor species "human"?

Heh, we have no time machine to check, in a scientific sense, a series of measurable characteristics and then - bang, we have the moment, the quantitative changes that turned into a qualitative, essential difference... Bah, it immediately sounds kinda eugenicist, Nazi, doesn't it? Measuring the lobes, noses, foreheads, posture... Oych... (Btw, monkeys and apes can throw their faeces at their enemies with some accuracy... And no, there is no "morality" in Animal Kingdom, if you understand what "morality" is at all!)

No, the arguments that (at least good) philosophers make are not of temporal but of systemic nature, since none of us can give an "absolute", definitive answer, in this kiddish sense of the word ("Ach, but I wanna know, mummy! Why can't I?" ). Science does not deal in absolutes, be it "natural" sciences or humanities... Your demands are misplaced. You would need to go to some kind of church for that kind of "clarity"... SJ is too clever to try something like that. He is not religious, you know...

And since you say I misunderstood your use of the word “historic” (which you still haven’t defined for me in your sense), at what point does this philosophical historicity enter the picture? Outside of our species? Or after our species has begun? Perhaps when farming begins?

Outside of our species? Ahem... I really have no clue what you may mean there... And there is no historicity without us, indeed!

Again, there are differences in schools of thought, sometimes coinciding with various languages and traditions, in this case Anglo-American, which has only one word for it v. German tradition, which differentiates between Geschichte and Historie, to begin with (Serbo-Croat also: povijest and historija).

Start here with a translator's POV: Contributions to Philosophy - there are many such difficulties one encounters in these activities...

Then a philosophical perspective, as in paragraph 2 and 2.1 here: Philosophy of History (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - but pay attention to 2.3 (Hegel's Philosophy of History).

History always has a dual meaning: the thing itself and method of approaching it; the happening itself and our 'reflection' of it; res gestae and historiae rerum gestarum. This double sense of the word always contains a speculative meaning: we can not know of those happenings directly but only via documents, stories (hi-story) being told (in Serbo-Croat we have povijest, as in pripovijedati = to tell a story). But what is it, in the end: reflection, simple chronicles or a philosophical approach to History/Geschichte?

For Hegel, this is "progress of the idea of Freedom", which Absolute (God/Spirit/Reason) must realise itself at some point in History. Marx would see history as Man's history of struggle for recognition/freedom. And this is meant as "historical materialism" - the only "matter" Marx is interested in and deals with is - history! Hence, "We only recognise one science, Science of History"! In a way, this is Philosophy with emancipatory intention/tendency, actualising itself.

In this context, historical Man is the subject here, not in one's biological but one's creative/productive characterisation, one who creates oneself, one's world, one's relations (with one's body, other Humans and Nature), (eventually) through conscious actions. Imagination and creativity is our "essence", i.e. speculatively speaking, together with Hegel, when it comes to us, we can say, "At the beginning there was - future!" (unlike animals). We are free to actively, consciously create our world, something animals can not. Not just in this generation but cross-generationally. Not just here but in the rest of the word, as well. And we are not necessarily determined (without residue) by our class, gender, race etc. albeit we are influenced by it, in various ways. We can, indeed, as we have already done, revolutionise ourselves and change our nature, the nature of our relations, our society, how we interact, how we see ourselves, the other, Nature etc. Now, this is the dominion of Man, Empire of Freedom - the potential one can not find in Animal Kingdom, try as hard as one might. Animals, in this sense, are ahistorical beings.

Whomever can show me how apes, whales or... chihuahuas do this, all that is uniquely Human - oh, well... Supper's on me!

 

[Orang Utan]

none of that means we're not animals

 

[gorski]

As I told you before: if you start speaking in YOUR OWN NAME ONLY - I would believe you...

 

[gorski]

This is instructive: http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_4/ocay_december2008.pdf

He is honest enough to give credit to Marcuse for the work done for him... A good resume, though...

 

[gorski]

Have you read this book ?

Analytic philosophy is NOT philosophy as such. A small, obscure branch with nothing to say, really, extremely boring and pointless.

Plus, his head seems empty of any kind of interesting ideas, so I believe him...

He really is not worth the time...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Analytic philosophy is NOT philosophy as such. A small, obscure branch with nothing to say, really, extremely boring and pointless.

Plus, his head seems empty of any kind of interesting ideas, so I believe him...

He really is not worth the time...

I pretty much agree with you on some of this. It does have nothing to say, it is kind of boring and pointless.

However, my problem then becomes your 'philosophy as such', much (all?) of which proves to be wrong over time.

The interesting ideas are then to be found elsewhere. In science, mostly. There's a reason why science fiction gets so many writers and so many readers.

 

[mojo pixy]

As I told you before: if you start speaking in YOUR OWN NAME ONLY - I would believe you...

So what you're saying is that you don't want to be an animal, but you require validation from others so as to make this a true thing and not just a thing you want.

Fair enough. Good luck.

 

[gorski]

Nonsense, LBJ. Why don't you say "for me", since you are not an expert by any means? You could do that...

What kind of a silly argument is that: "Oh, but over time much of it will become 'wrong'"?!? You mean, like science? Hehehehe!!!

But you really can't help yourself, can you? Btw, did you see Aristotle "gone forever" or summat, like our hilarious geography from not so long ago?

Philosophy is the mother of all that we have and don't you forget it! At least all the way to Newton, everything that came out as "interesting" was PHILOSOPHY!!! HA! GOTCHA!

P.S. One of the most well known philosophers of the XX century Hans Georg Gadamer once infamously said "I don't read a book unless it's at least 2000 years old"! There...

P.P.S. Here, if you wanna see some really interesting texts... (Dunno if it's available in English but...)

 

[gorski]

So what you're saying is that you don't want to be an animal, but you require validation from others so as to make this a true thing and not just a thing you want.

Fair enough. Good luck.

No. Try again. And be less pretentious, you may succeed...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nonsense, LBJ. Why don't you say "for me", since you are not an expert by any means? You could do that...

What kind of a silly argument is that: "Oh, but over time much of it will become 'wrong'"?!? You mean, like science? Hehehehe!!!

But you really can't help yourself, can you? Btw, did you see Aristotle "gone forever" or summat, like our hilarious geography from not so long ago?

Philosophy is the mother of all that we have and don't you forget it! At least all the way to Newton, everything that came out as "interesting" was PHILOSOPHY!!! HA! GOTCHA!

P.S. One of the most well known philosophers of the XX century Hans Georg Gadamer once infamously said "I don't read a book unless it's at least 2000 years old"! There...

P.P.S. Here, if you wanna see some really interesting texts... (Dunno if it's available in English but...)

Knew that would get your back up.

I'm not an expert by any means on non-analytic philosophy, you're right. Mostly the bits I've tried I've failed with. Miserably.

And you mention Aristotle, which is interesting, given that he was as much a scientist as a philosopher in the subject matter he dealt with. So yes, Aristotle was wrong about pretty much all the science he considered. And his wrongness was exposed by that lovely thing called experiment. If you can carry out an experiment to test an idea, then it isn't philosophy. It's science. If you can't experimentally test your idea (even if it's only theoretical and the experiment is beyond your current capabilities) then what is it? What knowledge is there beyond the boring analytic conclusion that 'existence/experience is' that is available to non-scientific enquiry?

I know that existence/experience is. Beyond that, all my knowledge is ultimately scientifically based. (Real knowledge here please - eg I know she loves me; no you don't, you hope she does.)

What part of that statement would you disagree with, and why? Preferably, I'd like a worked example.

 

[gorski]

HAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!! Confidence comes with ignorance, whatcanisay...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Worked example, please.

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It is always highly problematic to give short-hand answers, contextless and "hanging" in the air, especially to some here who seem highly opinionated, regardless of how much they have actually studied a subject or if they feel rather inert in terms of considering other tradition's attempt at answering a question... But - against my better judgement - I shall try, since I said I will do (something)... So, here goes "something"...



Heh, we have no time machine to check, in a scientific sense, a series of measurable characteristics and then - bang, we have the moment, the quantitative changes that turned into a qualitative, essential difference... Bah, it immediately sounds kinda eugenicist, Nazi, doesn't it? Measuring the lobes, noses, foreheads, posture... Oych... (Btw, monkeys and apes can throw their faeces at their enemies with some accuracy... And no, there is no "morality" in Animal Kingdom, if you understand what "morality" is at all!)

No, the arguments that (at least good) philosophers make are not of temporal but of systemic nature, since none of us can give an "absolute", definitive answer, in this kiddish sense of the word ("Ach, but I wanna know, mummy! Why can't I?" ). Science does not deal in absolutes, be it "natural" sciences or humanities... Your demands are misplaced. You would need to go to some kind of church for that kind of "clarity"... SJ is too clever to try something like that. He is not religious, you know...



Outside of our species? Ahem... I really have no clue what you may mean there... And there is no historicity without us, indeed!

Again, there are differences in schools of thought, sometimes coinciding with various languages and traditions, in this case Anglo-American, which has only one word for it v. German tradition, which differentiates between Geschichte and Historie, to begin with (Serbo-Croat also: povijest and historija).

Start here with a translator's POV: Contributions to Philosophy - there are many such difficulties one encounters in these activities...

Then a philosophical perspective, as in paragraph 2 and 2.1 here: Philosophy of History (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - but pay attention to 2.3 (Hegel's Philosophy of History).

History always has a dual meaning: the thing itself and method of approaching it; the happening itself and our 'reflection' of it; res gestae and historiae rerum gestarum. This double sense of the word always contains a speculative meaning: we can not know of those happenings directly but only via documents, stories (hi-story) being told (in Serbo-Croat we have povijest, as in pripovijedati = to tell a story). But what is it, in the end: reflection, simple chronicles or a philosophical approach to History/Geschichte?

For Hegel, this is "progress of the idea of Freedom", which Absolute (God/Spirit/Reason) must realise itself at some point in History. Marx would see history as Man's history of struggle for recognition/freedom. And this is meant as "historical materialism" - the only "matter" Marx is interested in and deals with is - history! Hence, "We only recognise one science, Science of History"! In a way, this is Philosophy with emancipatory intention/tendency, actualising itself.

In this context, historical Man is the subject here, not in one's biological but one's creative/productive characterisation, one who creates oneself, one's world, one's relations (with one's body, other Humans and Nature), (eventually) through conscious actions. Imagination and creativity is our "essence", i.e. speculatively speaking, together with Hegel, when it comes to us, we can say, "At the beginning there was - future!" (unlike animals). We are free to actively, consciously create our world, something animals can not. Not just in this generation but cross-generationally. Not just here but in the rest of the word, as well. And we are not necessarily determined (without residue) by our class, gender, race etc. albeit we are influenced by it, in various ways. We can, indeed, as we have already done, revolutionise ourselves and change our nature, the nature of our relations, our society, how we interact, how we see ourselves, the other, Nature etc. Now, this is the dominion of Man, Empire of Freedom - the potential one can not find in Animal Kingdom, try as hard as one might. Animals, in this sense, are ahistorical beings.

Whomever can show me how apes, whales or... chihuahuas do this, all that is uniquely Human - oh, well... Supper's on me!

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

- Albert Einstein

This happens a lot. One poster writes some dense, structurally complex post replete with abstruse vocabulary, and liberally spiced with references to learned treatises, eminences grises, and recondite theories. Then someone will respond in kind, and so on and so on.

It leaves one wondering if the purpose is communication, or self-aggrandizement.

I've always agreed with Einstein: if a person has a thorough understanding of a theory, concept, etc, they will be able to explain it to a layperson without resort to jargon or otherwise intellectually impenetrable language.

I believe what you're saying above is that Man is the only animal that has a sense of his/her/our own history as well as an apprehension of the concept of an oncoming future, giving us an ability to attempt to shape what is coming in accordance with our own wishes needs and desires; ideally, with an eye to what has gone before.

Am I way off base with this?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ironic, tbh, that one who is so hung up on the linguistic prowess of humans is so unable to express himself in words.

 

[mojo pixy]

be less pretentious

lol ok

 

[littlebabyjesus]

T
I've always agreed with Einstein: if a person has a thorough understanding of a theory, concept, etc, they will be able to explain it to a layperson without resort to jargon or otherwise intellectually impenetrable language.

He was true to his word as well. The best book on relativity I've read has been Einstein's own. It's the book I recommend to anyone who knows nothing about it - it's the clearest, simplest explanation I've read. (To the extent that pretty much every popular book on it since has shamelessly stolen from Einstein and his train example. They can't improve on it.)

Clever does not have to mean complicated or obscure. Some of the cleverest things ever thought, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, can be expressed in simple language in a single sentence.

 

[gorski]

He should know, he plagiarised it wholesale, so this is the only he did, simplified and "explained"...

On the other hand, some of us who are testing our own brains out...

OK, jargon - which bit is not clear? I'm gonna do LBJ here: if you fail, you're self-aggrandising...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Btw, I quoted Gorski's post and then made my comments, but there are many posts by a number of posters on this and other threads, to which the comments are equally applicable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which bit is not clear?

um

all of it.

Gimme a worked example of the value of philosophy.

 

[gorski]

I believe what you're saying above is that Man is the only animal...

We are not animals, for the reasons given.

...that has a sense of his/her/our own history...

We do not not just "have a sense of" but we create our own history, ourselves, our world...

...an apprehension of the concept of an oncoming future, giving us an ability to attempt to shape what is coming in accordance with our own wishes needs and desires;

Kinda, I guess... Maybe "apprehension" is a wrong word here - we literally create our own future and SOMETIMES we know what we are doing and then we are at our best... our full potential...

... ideally, with an eye to what has gone before.

Sometimes we can do it in opposition to the past, in fact destroying it and building anew. Sometimes we do understand what was really progressive in the past and then we preserve it, to our credit. But there are no guarantees, either way...

Am I way off base with this?

Sortta...

 

[gorski]

Which bit is not clear?

um

all of it.

Gimme a worked example of the value of philosophy.

...worked example...??? WTF?!?

You first, work your arse off, explain precisely!!!

Value? Priceless! However, Philosophy is useless! And the best! Go figure...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Worked example?

Go on. Humour us simplistic scientist types.

 

[gorski]

I said I have no idea WTF that would be.

So, you first, thanx...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How very dare I ask for a worked example.

I've already gone first. 'existence/experience is' . That's all we can know a priori.

Over to you. What else can we know a priori?