From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 15:31:29 EDT
At 2:58 PM -0400 4/7/05, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > > I am not saying animals are unintelligent, just that they are not as >> intelligent as humans, they have not reached the level where they can >> make their needs and wants an object, developing themselves and the >> object. > >Hi again Andy (and welcome back to the discussion Nicky!), > >The oft-repeated claim that humans are the most intelligent species >is an expression of what I mentioned previouly -- human chauvinism. >There is no such certainty on the part of the scientific community -- >indeed, an examination of imprecise, indirect 'objective' indicators >of intelligence such as brain size might lead one to conclude that >most species of whales are _more_ intelligent than human beings! Are we to deny unique human capacities in order to ensure that there is no basis for the claim of human superiority? > It >is not the scientific community which posits with an air of certainty >the dogma that humans are the most intelligent (and therefore allegedly >'superior') species -- it is (most) religious communities! It is >also a very 'Western' cultural conception which is alien to the way >in which most other cultures viewed the relation of humans to other >animals. Perhaps we should look at Tim Ingold's book on What is an Animal? Of course the very universal animal may itself be a historical creation. I think Luria tried to show this? > > >> However, I suspect the >> development of language arises with the development of productive >> activity of labour, hence of tools so non tool-makers are likely to have >> limited (*not* non-existent) language. > >There seems to be agreement by rersearchers in the field that belugas >have a language. There is no reason to suppose that it necessarily >arose as a consequence of whale productive activity. I doubt if your >claim about the origins of language for humans can be supported either, >but that is another matter. yes the question of animal language is as Jerry underlines a very real one. Sue Rumbaugh and Stuart Shanker seem to be two of important people we'll need to read. Yours, Rakesh > >Elsewhere (in another post) you referred to the need to show "mastery >over our natural environment." > >This also is a human chauvinistic conception since we are deemed >to be the "masters" who have mastery "over" nature. It clearly >expresses an adversarial relationship between humans and nature. >Such a conception was understandable in terms of 19th Century >thought. It is hopelessly outdated for our century! In addition >to being outdated, it also is a cultural conception associated >with modern European civilizations. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT