|
|
Re: Are we "special"?Doug (doug@net.com)Thu, 05 Dec 1996 13:59:52 -0500
> Here are three statements: > 1. Human beings are animals subject to evolution. > [Nothing special there] > 2. Human beings uniquely among animals have language and culture. > [unique = special?] > 3. The evolutionary circumstances of human beings are non-special. > (ordinary, common), > It seems to me that 3 together with 1 implies that 2 is false. > If the evolutionary circumstances leading to humans were common, > then animals with characteristics like humans would have commonly > evolved. > So one or more of 1, 2 and 3 must be false. > I do not doubt 1. > The truth of 2 is pretty obvious [no non-holocene artifactual pyramids] > [There could have been the equivalent of Australopithecines or > pre-sapiens Hominids undetected in the fossil record, I admit, > but the linguistic status of these is unknown.] > I conclude that 3 is false, that the evolutionary circumstances > of human beings are special. > Of course, as some have pointed out, the specialness of 3 may be > pretty trivial. > Tom Clarke
Looks like #1 and #3 are not exclusive of one another and
#2 says, IMO:
1. that if a 'group' had language but NO culture,
2. that if a 'group' had culture but NO language,
Thus, if a process that is not unique to a supergroup and
*******************************************************
|