Oh, and no joke -- I thought you were uncertain about the locution since it invokes various meanings, but your later post suggested that you were uncertain about the concepts, so I thought I was off-base. — Moliere

If you mean the concepts of "wary", "fear", "anxiety", you were right, not in the sense that I don't know what the words ordinarily mean, but in the sense that I was working out what to say about them in this philosophical context.

Hence, there was no blunder on your part. I couldn't see why you thought it was a blunder, which suggests something that you should have avoided. That back-and-to was, for me a normal part of the process.

Being an auto-didact is neither here nor there. I'm out of date. Hopefully, we're both learning. That's the point of the exercise.

Writing in the big sense is the cliche: Everything is text. Writing in the small sense is what we're doing to communicate as homo sapiens -- with words we usually recognize as writing. — Moliere

That makes sense. How far it interprets Derrida, I couldn't say. I read some of his earlier work carefully and thought it made sense, at least in the context of Wittgenstein. The later work lost me completely and I had other preoccupations, so I never read it carefully.

If you are a master of interpreting texts, everything is text. But isn't that like thinking that everything is a nail because you've got a hammer?

I have a prejudice against "what differentiates us from other animals". I'm constantly finding that proposed differentiations don't work. As in this case. A dog interprets certain of my behaviours as threatening and others as friendly - or so it seems to me. (They are also like a horse and not like a horse). Animals are both like humans and not like humans, in ways that slightly scramble our paradigm ideas of what a person is (i.e. a human being). So, philosophically at least, slightly confusing. Mammals are seem to be more like us that fish or insects, never mind bacteria and algae. Those living beings seem so alien that it is much harder to worry about what differentiates "us" from "them". Yet they are like us (and the mammals) in many ways - the fundamentals of being alive apply to them as well. (But what about whales and dolphins?)

If you mean the concepts of "wary", "fear", "anxiety", you were right, not in the sense that I don't know what the words ordinarily mean, but in the sense that I was working out what to say about them in this philosophical context.

Hence, there was no blunder on your part. I couldn't see why you thought it was a blunder, which suggests something that you should have avoided. That back-and-to was, for me a normal part of the process.

Being an auto-didact is neither here nor there. I'm out of date. Hopefully, we're both learning. That's the point of the exercise. — Ludwig V

Cool. :)

That makes sense. How far it interprets Derrida, I couldn't say. I read some of his earlier work carefully and thought it made sense, at least in the context of Wittgenstein. The later work lost me completely and I had other preoccupations, so I never read it carefully.

If you are a master of interpreting texts, everything is text. But isn't that like thinking that everything is a nail because you've got a hammer? — Ludwig V

I've read Of Grammatology deeply, and Voice and Phenomenon through a reading group here. Some other stuff to help understand, but my interpretation is just my memory of these two -- and they're both dealing with language and the sign -- one of Saussurean linguistics and the other of the sign in Husserlian phenomenology.

I once thought what you end with -- I thought it was turning things on its head to make the world look like language. But now I think it's turning language on its head to make it begin with the world -- and our inscriptions on dead leaves or the phonic substance are special cases of this more general meaning.

Or, rather -- it's how I interpret it because it makes sense of these relationships which language has to animal life. Basically I'm thinking of Writing as a living creature -- to strive, to mark, to differentiate -- is the transcendental base for writing of the homo sapien. Or, at least, this is how the deconstructive process would go by first setting up the transcendental condition and then knocking it down to allow something between the categories to shine through.

At least, that's my head cannon.

I have a prejudice against "what differentiates us from other animals". I'm constantly finding that proposed differentiations don't work. As in this case. A dog interprets certain of my behaviours as threatening and others as friendly - or so it seems to me. (They are also like a horse and not like a horse). Animals are both like humans and not like humans, in ways that slightly scramble our paradigm ideas of what a person is (i.e. a human being). So, philosophically at least, slightly confusing. Mammals are seem to be more like us that fish or insects, never mind bacteria and algae. Those living beings seem so alien that it is much harder to worry about what differentiates "us" from "them". Yet they are like us (and the mammals) in many ways - the fundamentals of being alive apply to them as well. (But what about whales and dolphins?) — Ludwig V

I share this distaste. And actually I am hesitant to utilize evolutionary explanations for our emotional life, in spite of that. What a bundle of contradictory impulses.

I'm often uncertain about how to go about this territory. It, too, is ambiguous. Hence its attraction to me! But your questions here are the questions I ask!

Looking at the evolutionary story philosophically it seems we couldn't maintain an ontological distinction between ourselves and the other creatures. Even "Species" is not a hard category because the evolutionary story shows that creatures morph over time into other creatures due to environmental pressures on sexual reproduction(EDIT: I should say, in our case. There's the even more curious case of asexual reproduction, at least curious to us sexual creatures).

But then I think: do dolphins have laws? Or is the homo sapien the only creature sick enough to treat its own babbling as more important than its basic needs on a regular basis?

And actually I am hesitant to utilize evolutionary explanations for our emotional life, — Moliere

I think evolutionary explanations are useful from time to time. But to think they are THE explanation is to fall for the myth of origins (Derrida? or someone else?). We are equipped with ears, and their evolutionary usefulness is the best explanation (short of an account of the evolutionary process) that I can think of. But what we make of them is a different matter.

"Species" is not a hard category — Moliere

Yes. I once read "Origin of Species" all the way through. The biggest takeaway for me is that he spent vast amounts of time arguing that species are not hard and fast; he argues it every which way he can think of. It is the foundation of evolutionary theory. What's more (as Darwin points out) we mostly know it already. Evolution takes our practice of selective breeding and pushes it through centuries and millennia.

do dolphins have laws? — Moliere

I don't know enough about them. Bees and ants seem to have rigid practices which do not need enforcing. Mammals are more complicated and do seem to need to enforce the rules - which are made and enforced by the alpha dog/lion/chimp. Are they sufficiently like laws to count? I'm not sure whether it is important to give a definite answer. Perhaps noting the similarities and differences is enough.

I think evolutionary explanations are useful from time to time. But to think they are THE explanation is to fall for the myth of origins (Derrida? or someone else?). We are equipped with ears, and their evolutionary usefulness is the best explanation (short of an account of the evolutionary process) that I can think of. But what we make of them is a different matter. — Ludwig V

Cool. I think we're pretty close in our understandings then.

It took me a long time to even acknowledge evolutionary forces on the human psyche because of how awful evolutionary psychology is. Or, at least, what I encountered of it. But simultaneously I didn't believe we were created by God as a distinct ontological category, so that's the needle I thread in thinking through.

It wasn't that I want to tear us away from our evolutionary heritage as much as I'm suspicious of Bad Faith, in Sartre's sense -- I do such and such because evolution being a perfect example of Bad Faith. (in the language of causes it may be true, but in the language of intent it's a way to defer responsibility)

Yes. I once read "Origin of Species" all the way through. The biggest takeaway for me is that he spent vast amounts of time arguing that species are not hard and fast; he argues it every which way he can think of. It is the foundation of evolutionary theory. What's more (as Darwin points out) we mostly know it already. Evolution takes our practice of selective breeding and pushes it through centuries and millennia. — Ludwig V

I'm impressed! I've only done selections, though I always feel that's a failing. I learned about evolution in the text book way rather than the proper, historical way.(well, proper to me)I was persuaded by the information provided, though. Due to my background I didn't know the theory of evolution when I went to college, and being an inquisitive sort I'd ask questions after class to make sense of it all.

But yup! "Natural selection" was a metaphor for what we've been doing for a long time, but then noting how nature can act in a similar fashion over a long period of time.

I don't know enough about them. Bees and ants seem to have rigid practices which do not need enforcing. Mammals are more complicated and do seem to need to enforce the rules - which are made and enforced by the alpha dog/lion/chimp. Are they sufficiently like laws to count? I'm not sure whether it is important to give a definite answer. Perhaps noting the similarities and differences is enough. — Ludwig V

Fair. To really answer the question we'd have to do more research. One thing I'd push against is bees and ants, though -- they have rigid practices, but since they do not need enforcing then that's not an example of law. Laws are made to punish people who break them. And, in a more general sense, we frequently prioritize our social life over our basic needs life. People wouldn't go through hazing rituals, among other things, unless they cared about what their fellow homo sapiens would say or think about them -- it's not their immediate needs that matters, it's how the other members babble that is prioritized.

And you're right to point out that social hierarchies are established by other species. That's similar to law, but not quite the same I think because we can dig up old laws, re-interpret them, and people will prioritize that re-interpretation for whatever reason (sometimes material, sometimes spiritual). That dance among the ideals which turns a homo sapien against its own happiness -- well, it seems like a strange thing in the animal world to me.

Still: noting the similarities and differences is probably enough.

awful evolutionary psychology is — Moliere

There's much I don't know about it, but, like many other people, I encountered sociobiology (E.O. Wilson) when it was fashionable. I live in liberal - even woke - circles. Do I need to say more? But I'm not assuming that that's all there is to evolutionary psychology; I do assume that it's not appropriate to speculate without a good understanding of the field and evidence.

they have rigid practices, but since they do not need enforcing then that's not an example of law. — Moliere

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree that ants and bees don't have enforcers, so don't have laws.

That's similar to law, but not quite the same — Moliere

Mammals do have a kind of enforcement, but they don't have legislation (partly, they can't have that because it requires writing). But there is at least one alternative. The Icelandic parliament used to appoint people to memorize the laws and recite them when the Thing (Parliament) met; I believe that was down to widespread illiteracy and the scarcity of writing materials. Anyway, what matters here is that somehow you have to ensure that everyone knows what the law is; writing, on stone or paper or whatever, is good. But if that's not practical, appointing a Memory person can fill the gap. I conclude that we have identified two things that are essential to human law - one is a means of enforcement and the other is a reliable source for what the law is.

What about economy? Things like private/public property distinctions?

I can't find enough in law -- but counting sea-shells that aren't even collected but "printed" by governments and forcing people out of their homes because they can't give enough fake sea-shells -- how does that sit in your judgment? (EDIT: not ethically -- I think I know the answer -- I just mean with respect to animal/human distinctions and finding something we do that could only be done with writing, in the small sense)

Before I get to the economy, some thoughts on the question what distinguishes humans from other animals. Each species of animal is similar to and different from every other species. It's not very exciting, philosophically speaking.

I suspect that even though other animals are perfectly aware that they are different from other animals, they don't care very much about that. It's not just that they can't (so far as we can tell) because they don't have a language like ours, but what they care about is whether the other animal is something to eat or be eaten by, whether there is competition for food and living space and so on. Cross-species friendships are not unknown.

The question has a long history. In some ways, of course, it is like the questions that other animals can ask an answer, but it seems to carry some weight for humans that it doesn't carry for other animals. I don't really know the answer, but I fear that it may carry the some unspoken weight:-

1 the weight of assuring us humans that we are superior in some moral sense to other animals (as shown by the fact that "animal" is used as a term of abuse in some contexts) and that the reason people sometimes feel that other animals are superior is because of their "innocence" (cf. children), which is ambiguous praise

2 the weight of justifying our dominance over other animals in the sense of justifying our abuse of them or at least our practices of treating them as means to our ends.

We don't think very much, do we, about the various ways that various animals are superior to humans? We think they are not important. That's telling. Like me feeling superior to you because of X, while failing to acknowledge that you are superior to me because of Y.

So I'm uneasy about this game we have got into. Still:-

It is true that animals don't have money and live in an ecology rather than an economy. Money is a key feature of economics; so is property. Neither can exist without the law.

But what makes money work is not the law, but people's confidence in it as a store of value. It doesn't matter whether the sea shells are fake or not. What matters is whether people are confident that they will be able to exchange them for "real" things, like food and shelter at some point in the future.

Don't think of money as value, think of it as a symbol - a claim - on resources. We don't value the empty promise to "pay the bearer"; we value the promise of being able to obtain the things we want and need.

I'm hopelessly idealistic because I think that every citizen has 1) a claim to a basic standard of food, shelter and other necessities irrespective of how "useful" they are and 2) a duty to contribute to the shared costs and labour of the social organization they live in. (And every human being has a right to be recognized as a citizen of some society/nation.)

I don't think those principles are left wing or right wing. They are principles of enlightened self-interest.

PS Of course, human beings are special in all sorts of ways. But I'm human and so inclined to pay special attention to them. My problem is that I don't understand what the significance is of the differences and similarities between humans and other animals.

do dolphins have laws? — Moliere

I don't know, but it seems orcas don't object to their kids being juvenile delinquents.

We were suddenly surprised by what felt like a bad wave from the side,” he said of the recent incident. “That happened twice, and the second time we realized that we had two orcas underneath the boat, biting the rudder off. They were two juveniles, and the adults were cruising around, and it seemed to me like they were monitoring that action.

1 the weight of assuring us humans that we are superior in some moral sense to other animals (as shown by the fact that "animal" is used as a term of abuse in some contexts) and that the reason people sometimes feel that other animals are superior is because of their "innocence" (cf. children), which is ambiguous praise

2 the weight of justifying our dominance over other animals in the sense of justifying our abuse of them or at least our practices of treating them as means to our ends.

We don't think very much, do we, about the various ways that various animals are superior to humans? We think they are not important. That's telling. Like me feeling superior to you because of X, while failing to acknowledge that you are superior to me because of Y.

So I'm uneasy about this game we have got into. — Ludwig V

You're right to point both of these things out. I hope to avoid both. We share uneasiness about both justifications/beliefs/thoughts.

My problem is that I don't understand what the significance is of the differences and similarities between humans and other animals. — Ludwig V

I think there's something of a romanticization going on, but it's not a bad one. The human notices how other animals, though they fear they do not worry as we do. The significance is therapeutic rather than in search of a justification. Rather than moral superiority the idea is that human beings are inferior in some way to how other animals live. The other animals seem to get by without worrying about their non-existence, for instance. The ability to verbalize is posited as a kind of fruit of the tree of Knowledge between Good and Evil -- we reach for verbalization naturally and find that it has a cost associated (but we'd surely reach again), namely, anxiety about things that are not only not-present, but can't be present.

At least so the story goes. Empirically I wouldn't be surprised if there are some other species which have similar odd-problems with their emotional life due to various capacities of the mind shaped by evolution. I just wanted to note what seems significant in making the distinctions here.

Don't think of money as value, think of it as a symbol - a claim - on resources. We don't value the empty promise to "pay the bearer"; we value the promise of being able to obtain the things we want and need. — Ludwig V

I agree! As Marx said -- money is a claim on future labor. In a sense there's reciprocity between animals, so a kind of economy where production is concerned, but I don't think that ability to tabulate as we do -- and its consequences of absurd power over others -- would be possible without writing in the small sense.

In a way it's a problem of having too much information to wade through, rather than relying upon a social instinct of reciprocity, and getting lost.

In a way it's a problem of having too much information to wade through, rather than relying upon a social instinct of reciprocity, and getting lost. — Moliere

I agree that the ambiguous role of money as a medium of exchange - a measure of value (in a practical sense) - and as a good to be exchanged leads to all sorts of problems, which might be better avoided. And I agree that it is hard to see how money could be what it is without writing.

But there are advantages to the ability to plan and organize that you get from having writing. (Most of the earliest writing is mundane stuff like inventories and records.)

And there's a good case for saying that a lot of what we get up to is the result of (over-)elaboration of our thinking which depends at least on language and very likely on writing.

I think we're in agreement here then. :)

There are advantages to writing -- and just like the fruit from the tree of knowledge between Good and Evil, there's no going back anyways, so it's a groundless desire to become-animal, in the imagined innocence we perceive sense.

Just a few quirks about it that, if I'm correct, have philosophical ramifications.

You're right. That's remarkable. :smile:

Well now what are we going to argue about?! :D

Good chat! I think I thought to the end of my thread.

Yes. I think it's important to be able to recognize the end of a chat. Then one can look forward to the next one.