4 ms·

Animals that do not have a language they can describe the world in still have knowledge about the world.

leftyted 6y ago
Personally I do not find the whole "language = knowledge" argument convincing. But if you're interested in reading writers who make that argument (and perhaps I'm vulgarizing the argument a bit), Nietzsche makes it in On Truth and Falsity in their Extra-Moral Sense and George Lakoff makes it in Metaphors We Live By.
- blancNoir 6y ago
  I'd also suggest Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a seminal work of the logical positivist movement. Influenced by Frege's predicate calculus, the aim of the Tractatus was to determine an isomorphic relationship between language, thought, and external states of affairs. An axiomatic attempt to reveal a potentially ideal logical language, that is not interested in meaning per se, but merely an accurate reflection of the world. A closed system that essentially excludes non-falsifiable metaphysical question. Famously concluding with the instruction: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Part of Wittgenstein's project, even in its early aggressively logical form, was philosophy as a therapeutic. That is, the metaphysical questions concerning god, being, essence, and forms that had inspired thousands of years worth of fevered conversation, could be finally be quieted. That's not to say they couldn't be meditated on, but were not in the domain of his logical language, and so silence. Again, I think early Wittgenstein sometimes gets misinterpreted, "...therefore one cannot speak" does not, to me, mean that it can't be considered or one must forgo spirituality, just that it couldn't be spoken of within the project of the Tractatus. Logical empiricism was ultimately a dead end as the criteria for even verifying empirical truth has long been contentious philosophically, and was further critiqued by contemporaries such as Quine who attacked the premise of the analytic/synthetic distinction (think Hume's fork, which Kant tried to solve) and Popper who cited the problem of induction to critique the fundamental premises of the positivists verificationism. Wittgenstein is an interesting case, as the Tractatus is considered an early work of his, profoundly influential to analytic philosphy at the time, yet his later work, Philosophical Investigations is sometimes seen to retract the dogmatism found in the Tractatus. I tend to take the view that it's a continuation of his thought, rather than a retraction of his earlier work. Crudely, whereas his former thought represented a narrowly axiomatic definition of language and its truth value, PI investigates, among many other ideas, language as an activity, or game, that has meaning dependent on the context of its use, languages as families. Granted, Wittgenstein is a complex thinker and these are simply my interpretations. It's also curious to note that as positivism was beginning to fall out of favor around the time of the second world war, a continental thinker such as Heidegger, whose thought luxuriated in the kind of metaphysical questions the positivists necessarily eschewed, rose to prominence and was infamously sanctioned by the NSDAP to philosophize about their presumed "destiny". Bit of a tangent, but I think the historical context is relevant, as often philosophical movements are birthed from pre- and post-war attitudes.
powerapple 6y ago
Are animals as intelligent as human? What language does to us is to be able to pass on knowledge to generations, knowledge can be accumulated. Animals may be able to pass on simple concept to next generation, they won't be able to accumulate knowledge without language and writing.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  As a response to leftyted, erispoe's point neither depends on nor implies that animals are as intelligent as humans, it is simply bringing up a counter-example: what appears to be knowledge in animals lacking language. Of course, you could always attempt to define knowledge such that it is purely verbal, or alternatively define whatever is going on in the brain of an animal to be language, but is either approach useful? In common usage, we recognise, as knowledge, various things that cannot be communicated by language, such as knowing how to ride a unicycle on a tightrope (I doubt you can learn it just from a book) and the infamous qualia which supposedly prove that the mind is dualistic. And what about the knowledge of how to use language? How does that get bootstrapped?
  - powerapple 6y ago
    The knowledge of riding a unicycle on a tightrope does not give you the ability to ride a unicycle on a tightrope. Yes, you have to learn it through experiencing it, because you need to map it to your motors. Animal has instincts, they are able to trace water, for example, without teaching. It is also knowledge, but for our discussion, knowledge is what we obtained after birth, not something encoded in our DNA. This knowledge is stored in the format of language. Apparently some believes that that language is part of our DNA. That's why you can have Tazan, but not an animal can speak human language even if a human raise it since it was born because language cannot be learnt without support in code in DNA.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      If we define knowledge that way, leftyted's original claim (knowledge is language) becomes true by definition. This can lead to some confusion. In Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument[1], dualists say that qualia are knowledge, knowledge is language, and so if Mary could not learn qualia by studying science, then materialism is false. This argument trades on being inconsistent over what it means to have knowledge of something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Personally I do not find the whole "language = knowledge" argument convincing. But if you're interested in reading writers who make that argument (and perhaps I'm vulgarizing the argument a bit), Nietzsche makes it in On Truth and Falsity in their Extra-Moral Sense and George Lakoff makes it in Metaphors We Live By.

blancNoir 6y ago
I'd also suggest Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a seminal work of the logical positivist movement. Influenced by Frege's predicate calculus, the aim of the Tractatus was to determine an isomorphic relationship between language, thought, and external states of affairs. An axiomatic attempt to reveal a potentially ideal logical language, that is not interested in meaning per se, but merely an accurate reflection of the world. A closed system that essentially excludes non-falsifiable metaphysical question. Famously concluding with the instruction: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Part of Wittgenstein's project, even in its early aggressively logical form, was philosophy as a therapeutic. That is, the metaphysical questions concerning god, being, essence, and forms that had inspired thousands of years worth of fevered conversation, could be finally be quieted. That's not to say they couldn't be meditated on, but were not in the domain of his logical language, and so silence. Again, I think early Wittgenstein sometimes gets misinterpreted, "...therefore one cannot speak" does not, to me, mean that it can't be considered or one must forgo spirituality, just that it couldn't be spoken of within the project of the Tractatus. Logical empiricism was ultimately a dead end as the criteria for even verifying empirical truth has long been contentious philosophically, and was further critiqued by contemporaries such as Quine who attacked the premise of the analytic/synthetic distinction (think Hume's fork, which Kant tried to solve) and Popper who cited the problem of induction to critique the fundamental premises of the positivists verificationism. Wittgenstein is an interesting case, as the Tractatus is considered an early work of his, profoundly influential to analytic philosphy at the time, yet his later work, Philosophical Investigations is sometimes seen to retract the dogmatism found in the Tractatus. I tend to take the view that it's a continuation of his thought, rather than a retraction of his earlier work. Crudely, whereas his former thought represented a narrowly axiomatic definition of language and its truth value, PI investigates, among many other ideas, language as an activity, or game, that has meaning dependent on the context of its use, languages as families. Granted, Wittgenstein is a complex thinker and these are simply my interpretations. It's also curious to note that as positivism was beginning to fall out of favor around the time of the second world war, a continental thinker such as Heidegger, whose thought luxuriated in the kind of metaphysical questions the positivists necessarily eschewed, rose to prominence and was infamously sanctioned by the NSDAP to philosophize about their presumed "destiny". Bit of a tangent, but I think the historical context is relevant, as often philosophical movements are birthed from pre- and post-war attitudes.

powerapple 6y ago

Are animals as intelligent as human? What language does to us is to be able to pass on knowledge to generations, knowledge can be accumulated. Animals may be able to pass on simple concept to next generation, they won't be able to accumulate knowledge without language and writing.

mannykannot 6y ago
As a response to leftyted, erispoe's point neither depends on nor implies that animals are as intelligent as humans, it is simply bringing up a counter-example: what appears to be knowledge in animals lacking language. Of course, you could always attempt to define knowledge such that it is purely verbal, or alternatively define whatever is going on in the brain of an animal to be language, but is either approach useful? In common usage, we recognise, as knowledge, various things that cannot be communicated by language, such as knowing how to ride a unicycle on a tightrope (I doubt you can learn it just from a book) and the infamous qualia which supposedly prove that the mind is dualistic. And what about the knowledge of how to use language? How does that get bootstrapped?
- powerapple 6y ago
  The knowledge of riding a unicycle on a tightrope does not give you the ability to ride a unicycle on a tightrope. Yes, you have to learn it through experiencing it, because you need to map it to your motors. Animal has instincts, they are able to trace water, for example, without teaching. It is also knowledge, but for our discussion, knowledge is what we obtained after birth, not something encoded in our DNA. This knowledge is stored in the format of language. Apparently some believes that that language is part of our DNA. That's why you can have Tazan, but not an animal can speak human language even if a human raise it since it was born because language cannot be learnt without support in code in DNA.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    If we define knowledge that way, leftyted's original claim (knowledge is language) becomes true by definition. This can lead to some confusion. In Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument[1], dualists say that qualia are knowledge, knowledge is language, and so if Mary could not learn qualia by studying science, then materialism is false. This argument trades on being inconsistent over what it means to have knowledge of something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument