3 ms·

Boy there is a lot in Feser’s work to unpack. I haven’t gotten through all of the links you posted yet, but the crux of his argument (and evidently the argument

Boy there is a lot in Feser’s work to unpack. I haven’t gotten through all of the links you posted yet, but the crux of his argument (and evidently the argument Thomists make) is that humans are different because we are capable of abstract reasoning and logic whereas animals are not. Do you suppose animals really are not capable of these two mental faculties? Abstraction seems more difficult to dissect but it does not seem too farfetched to imagine that animals are capable of making future plans based on an understanding of cause and effect. Don’t you think that implies some level of logical reasoning? I know Feser’s views are not necessarily indicative of your own but I would appreciate your opinion

mabub24 9y ago
Personally, I have not read Feser. I would recommend PMS Hacker's book "Human Nature: A Categorical Framework", which, from reading Fraser's blog posts, I see moves along similar lines. The philosophy of mind is a topic I'm quite interested in, so I think I can respond to some of your questions. > humans are different because we are capable of abstract reasoning and logic whereas animals are not. Do you suppose animals really are not capable of these two mental faculties? We need to ask, in what sense and depth are animals able to express that form of reasoning and logic? Humans do so at unique levels through language. There is a layer of reasoning and following logic that can be expressed by being shown by doing, like preparing, but there is another, higher form, that can be expressed by being said through language, like planning. The former is continually in the present. It does involve a kind of thinking and a kind of intelligence. But unlike the latter form, which expresses an understanding, and therefore the ability to express in language, the past and future tenses, there is no expression of why it is being done. That expressing of why, that kind of expression of reasoning, animals lack and humans are capable of through language. Language is not just some thing we slap over thought. It is an ability that, through its use, expresses the concepts and limits of our thoughts. It is the animate expression of our thinking, that is the collection of our rational and cogitative faculties that define us as persons rather than animals. It's not so much that animals lack reasoning or logic (that is the view of a crude Behaviorism), it is that humans are capable of the same and far more unique expressions of reasoning and logic than animals, so much so that humans are unique from animals as a result.
c22 9y ago
Didn't Alex the parrot[0] prove that at least one animal is capable of abstraction? He could identify by type specific objects he'd never seen before and make distinctions based on color or amount. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
danielam 9y ago
I don't have an fully thought out position, but I will say that without abstraction, you couldn't talk about logic or reasoning as these deal in abstract concepts.

mabub24 9y ago

Personally, I have not read Feser. I would recommend PMS Hacker's book "Human Nature: A Categorical Framework", which, from reading Fraser's blog posts, I see moves along similar lines. The philosophy of mind is a topic I'm quite interested in, so I think I can respond to some of your questions. > humans are different because we are capable of abstract reasoning and logic whereas animals are not. Do you suppose animals really are not capable of these two mental faculties? We need to ask, in what sense and depth are animals able to express that form of reasoning and logic? Humans do so at unique levels through language. There is a layer of reasoning and following logic that can be expressed by being shown by doing, like preparing, but there is another, higher form, that can be expressed by being said through language, like planning. The former is continually in the present. It does involve a kind of thinking and a kind of intelligence. But unlike the latter form, which expresses an understanding, and therefore the ability to express in language, the past and future tenses, there is no expression of why it is being done. That expressing of why, that kind of expression of reasoning, animals lack and humans are capable of through language. Language is not just some thing we slap over thought. It is an ability that, through its use, expresses the concepts and limits of our thoughts. It is the animate expression of our thinking, that is the collection of our rational and cogitative faculties that define us as persons rather than animals. It's not so much that animals lack reasoning or logic (that is the view of a crude Behaviorism), it is that humans are capable of the same and far more unique expressions of reasoning and logic than animals, so much so that humans are unique from animals as a result.

c22 9y ago

Didn't Alex the parrot[0] prove that at least one animal is capable of abstraction? He could identify by type specific objects he'd never seen before and make distinctions based on color or amount. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

danielam 9y ago

I don't have an fully thought out position, but I will say that without abstraction, you couldn't talk about logic or reasoning as these deal in abstract concepts.