Re: Are we "special"?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jane Andrews: "Re: human brains v.s animal brains"
• Previous message: Ed Conrad: "Speaking for us all: `I'm sick, Sick, SICK of Ed Conrad's bullshit!'"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"

In article <586ume$92p@news.cc.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu (Thomas
Clarke) writes:

>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.
>
>T

You need to work on your logic.

• Next message: Jane Andrews: "Re: human brains v.s animal brains"
• Previous message: Ed Conrad: "Speaking for us all: `I'm sick, Sick, SICK of Ed Conrad's bullshit!'"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Are we "special"?"