3 ms·
That might in fact be true. If we define humans as having a sufficiently sophisticated language, and using a term to reference one's entire species is characte
by lovemenot 4y ago
That might in fact be true.
If we define humans as having a sufficiently sophisticated language, and using a term to reference one's entire species is characteristic of that, then at a stretch we could define the first human being as the child of proto-humans who first invented this linguistic concept.
- Towaway69 4y agoPoint taken :) What if "human" would be replaced by "ape"?
- lovemenot 4y agoSure. There are several similar arguments made in this thread. Such as, before the word "run" was first used, we could only walk quickly. The logic of these arguments is fine. I just noticed a way to nit-pick your implementation of it.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> If we define humans as having a sufficiently sophisticated language That would be hard to object to. > and using a term to reference one's entire species is characteristic of that But this is easy to object to. People can easily do without a term for the species; it's more common to use tribal names, so that a contrast is drawn between different groups of humans (as opposed to between humans and animals, or humans and gods). Terms for humans as a species come along pretty quickly, but they're not universal.