Posted by joewaked  3/31/2017 10:59 pm | #1 |
This is nuts. But I'm stuck. I am talking to someone who just responded like this to my statement that plants, and even animals, do not have a rational intellect:
"Well, how do you know that dogs and chimps don't have a rational intellect?"
Of course they don't. They cannot reason, exercise judgment, draw inferences and so forth
"They might. But because we can't communicate with them, we can't probe to see what they know."
But that proves that they do not have a rational mind because they cannot communicate since they do not know language.
"Perhaps they are trying to communicate but we do not understand their language or mode of communication?"
That's just preposterous. Their intellect is completely circumscribed by their sensitive organs. All they know and can learn is limited to their sensitive perceptions and experiences. Unlike us, their mind cannot rise above the senses and grasp immaterial things like concepts, ideas, abstracts, etc.
"But how do you KNOW that this is not a possibility for them?"
So, there you have it. I realized that I am not sure how to respond or explain this! Any ideas on how to respond to the assertion that plants/animals have rational intellects?
|
Posted by joewaked 4/01/2017 11:43 am | #2 |
Alexander wrote:
Insofar as it's just an assertion, it surely ought to be enough to say "there's no evidence that they do have rational souls". We would expect there to be some evidence of at least one non-human animal having the capacity for reason - given the huge sample of such creatures available to us, the fact that there is no evidence is itself pretty solid evidence that they don't have such a capacity.
On the other hand, if they do provide evidence, obviously you'll have to answer that evidence. But if they don't, the above seems adequate.
You are correct Alexander. It was an attempt to shift the burden to me, even though I'm not the one making the assertion. I did ask, "what evidence is there to support your assertion?" And the response was: Look at the dog barking and whimpering at you; desperately trying to communicate with you, but you just don't understand it.
|
Posted by Proclus 4/01/2017 12:34 pm | #3 |
I forget the details of the study but I'm sure you could dig it up. Some Japanese (I think) scientists recently did a study with chimpanzees to try to teach them to associate quantities of objects with numerical symbols. After many many lessons and reinforcements, the chimpanzees were able to consistently make the association. The interesting thing is that they needed the same number of lessons for each new symbol. When the same experiment is attempted with human children they need roughly the same number of lessons for the first few numbers, but then are able to associate the further numbers with only a few lessons. The natural inference is that human children have an ability to step back from the particular case and "get what's going on here." They are able to say, "Ah these symbols represent numbers, and since the last one was seven and the one before it six, the next will be eight and so on." This is precisely the kind of higher-order abstraction that is required for rational inference and all the evidence suggests that humans are the only organisms to have it.
As a side note, I'm not so sure how central it is to a classical worldview that humans be the only rational animals. How much would it really change our picture of the world if we discovered some non-human persons? Most theists already believe in angels.
|
Posted by joewaked 4/07/2017 10:57 am | #4 |
I did ask, "what evidence is there to support your assertion?" And the response was: Look at the dog barking and whimpering at you; desperately trying to communicate with you, but you just don't understand it.
Has this person ever had a dog? They aren't exactly difficult to understand, at least once you've been with them for a while, and their "communications" never go beyond what you could expect from an animal which is sentient but not rational.
Alexander, perhaps I'm being thick skulled here, so forgive my attempt to get more clarity. He genuinely believes that the dog is trying *to communicate* but is frustrated by his limitations. He recognizes that the dog does not possess the same level of rationality that we possess, but rather, the dog possesses SOME rationality.
|
Posted by Proclus 4/07/2017 3:00 pm | #5 |
It might help to ask your friend, then, what he means by "rationality." In my experience, most people who hold views like what you describe think of "rationality" simply as thinking or problem solving, which animals clearly do and which easily can be thought to come in degrees. This is very different than what Aristotelians mean when they say that humans are the only rational animals. Book I of the Politics is a good place to start where Aristotle compares humans to other gregarious animals that communicate, such as bees. What humans have that bees don't is not communication but "speech," that is the ability to abstract the λόγος of things, think about them at this higher-order level, and communicate those thoughts to others. Dogs obviously cannot do this. Dogs communicate, but they do not signify.
|
Posted by Callum 4/07/2017 4:21 pm | #6 |
It might help to ask your friend, then, what he means by "rationality." In my experience, most people who hold views like what you describe think of "rationality" simply as thinking or problem solving, which animals clearly do and which easily can be thought to come in degrees. This is very different than what Aristotelians mean when they say that humans are the only rational animals. Book I of the Politics is a good place to start where Aristotle compares humans to other gregarious animals that communicate, such as bees. What humans have that bees don't is not communication but "speech," that is the ability to abstract the λόγος of things, think about them at this higher-order level, and communicate those thoughts to others. Dogs obviously cannot do this. Dogs communicate, but they do not signify.
I have to say i think Feser's expansion on Ross' argument for immaterial aspects of thought is one of the strongest from the A-T position.
Considering how Ross rests on Kripke (as well as utilising Quine) its surprising that it is somewhat unAristotelian?
|
Posted by joewaked 4/07/2017 7:38 pm | #7 |
Proclus and Alexander,
Very helpful responses fellas. Thank you!
