The Acquisition of Reason, Animals versus Man.
There is a difference between man and animal. Although man and animals have many physiological similarities there seems to be an unmeasurable difference in our intellectual anthropocentric thought. Man seems to have a sense of “self” and animals have an innate drive for behaviour. The concern of what makes a human different from any other animal is a question that great philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, and the humble folk often partake discussion in. Some may believe that perhaps there are animals that make choices and seem to have a free will, especially regarding as to when and how they choose to act. However, some theorists have been forced to determine what it is to be “human” as a separate self-aware entity to distinguished and discern the difference between what it is to be a primitive animal whose actions are predisposed in their genetic makeup and survivalist technique, and that of human reason and intellectualization of our earth. We see theorists such as Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes who were concrete in their beliefs that there is something specific that allows for a differentiation between man and animal, and this being reason, is different between them. Hobbes and Descartes both being born in the late 1500s had very similar views on the differences between man and animal, both discuss reason and motivation in actions of man, and the lack of reason and motivation in animals.
Rene Descartes discussed reason with the foundation of his scientific discipline and experience, attempting to create a deductive linear method hoping to lay a reliable foundation for which he can build upon true belief or absolute knowledge. Descartes spent his whole life “cultivating [his] reason and advancing, as far as [he] could, in the knowledge of the truth, following the method [he] had prescribed” and after finding education insufficient in fulfilling his needs and causing him to feel more of a sense of ignorance than knowledge itself he moved onto the critical analysis of the difference between man and animal(15). By presenting his methods he also discussed the lack of reason, or the availabilities of animals to construct a concept such as his method. Descartes saw animals as “automata” with the movement being caused by “ placement, and shape of its counterweights and wheels.”, and that animals worked such as a machine, devoid of a Will and Reason (28) And that although animals have senses the passions of the body can be guided, but passions of the mind require a Will. Descartes believed that animals could never learn to construct language like humans do because they lacked reason. Explaining that although animals have very similar “internal arrangements of [their] organs” to humans but that God while building animals may have not pit into them any rational soul. Descartes believed that it was this rational soul that aided in the action of thinking. He believe that the contingencies of life would inevitably allow animals to fail to portray reason or intelligence similar to that of humans. And that it's not the physiology that limits animals from speaking as we do, they seem to lack what Descartes again calls “the rational soul”.
Descartes's theories seem to stand on the foundation of his belief in God. Descartes did not believe that humans acquired knowledge but that it was given to them by a “nature truly more perfect than [him]”. Although he does provide a well informed discussion on the possible existence of a God, using knowledge available during his lifetime. However, in proving that God must exist, he leaves himself for a lot of critique. By placing his knowledge in the hands of his fate and concluding that “God created a rational soul and joined it to this body in a particular manner”, it leaves further discussion regarding science somewhat out of place. Scientific discussion of neural mechanisms, or what could be further discussed as the instance of a soul unfortunately came after Descartes. The reason I see such a bridge of because it seems as though he would have been highly susceptible to using science and math as a huge part of his theories or discussions of a rational soul. This belief in God is what separates Rene Descartes from contemporaries such as Thomas Hobbes.
Hobbes explains as well that reason is the distinguishing feature but not only that, that humans have an ability to dominate other animals. And it is by reason alone that this is possible.
“we call the Will the act (not the faculty) of willing.”. According to Hobbes the act of willing, or voluntary action on precedes deliberation. Hobbes discussion on Appetites and Aversions helps to make a strong case for the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions. Actions following deliberation with ideas such as covetousness, ambition, lust or other appetites” are often voluntary actions. Actions that follow deliberation with appetites or aversions such as “food, excretion and exoneration” may be considered involuntary and may be caused by innate needs that must be fulfilled in order to survive(12). Something else that separates man from animal is the desire to know “why, and how” and this desire alone allows humans to place a buffer between even their involuntary innate acts, which makes man distinguished, not only by his reason, but also by this singular passion from other animals.”(31). This curiosity paired with the availability to perform voluntary action allows man to have the choice to omit or according to our appetite or aversion. This sense of voluntary action gives man the illusion of control causes the necessity to control other animals, and alike other humans.
Hobbes explains that the reason that man needs a sense of control is simply due to the fact that “[man] cannot be content with a moderate power, but [only] because he cannot assure the power and means to live well” and given that others are constantly fighting for control over the necessities of life man cannot find contentment “without the acquisition of more.” (20). Hobbes believed that the purpose of a mans life is to focus on the “preservation of his own nature”, and that a man must do anything in his control to ensure his life, by using “his own judgement and reason”(25). All animals look to preserve their lives and commonly will avoid danger if the awareness of potentiality is present however, for humans Hobbes explains that the concept of the preservation of self is primarily a humanistic idea and that there is only an “artificial . . . covenant” between humans that serves to protect us from one another. So, although, there seems to be a significant amount of similarities between Descartes's and Hobbes's perspectives on animals, man and reason one must compare and contrast them in order to determine the most “correct” theory.
Both Hobbes and Descartes seem to avoid a concept of anthropocentrism, as to not be guilty of a fallacy, however, I see a quite large fault with both theories, and that is the assumption that animals are very dissimilar from humans in respect to intellectual reasoning. Hobbes himself explains that animals are capable of deliberation and that this ability to deliberate is what aids humans in the opportunity to omit from certain appetites and aversions. However, I'd like to discuss Hobbes more in respect to this concept of deliberation, I would like to discuss Hobbes's concept of the Will, for he says that animals deliberate as well but than gives inward expressions of the Will such as covetousness, ambition and lust that we can not see in an outward manner, for I can never see someone in a place of internalized lust. Humans can barely pinpoint the concept of lust in ourselves, let alone in another species. Again, to compare and contrast the two theories one may note a concept present in both theories, both Hobbes and Descartes saw animals in a manner by which they were not animated and that their actions were made primarily on the basis of involuntary innate action, ruled by the mechanisms of their physiological parts. However, A contrasting piece between Hobbes's and Descartes's theories is the existence of God, Descartes believe that the foundation of reasoning and intellectual abilities were given to humans nearly as a gift but as he states, “reason also dictates to us that our thoughts cannot be all true, since we are not all-perfect.” (22). According to Hobbes's man strives for his idea of perfection, although he does not state God as the ideal incantation of perfection, nor does he mention God. Hobbe's explains that man is constantly looking to attain continual success and the desiring of continual prosperity. But what is of continual prosperity? The acquisition and foundation of reason?
The idea of continual prosperity had me thinking of Descartes's struggle to find pure knowledge as well as Hobbes's view of felicity. Descartes attempted to find a stable foundation of “true” knowledge was laid in math and perhaps early scientific thought where in comparison Hobbes found that the only opportunity for true knowledge perhaps was unattainable due to the constant movement of life, also noting that felicity was unachievable as well. A qualm I face is that perhaps there is a need in man to control all things, but the one thing we cannot control or contain entirely is our knowledge, our reason, our appetites. So what is it that makes humans different from man? Who got it right?
Descartes believed that an individuals thought may be more coherent, however Hobbes did not see the world the same way, he believed in a concept of Common Wealth. I think that here in lies the answer of what separates man from animal. This use of communication to aid in survival. I wish that both theorists had experienced feral and isolate children during the time in which the discussion of the distinguishing features between man and animal was so prominent in their mind. There seems to be little difference in humans that were not exposed to society in comparison to animals. Perhaps if one took a step back and looked and the exterior of man and animal they would see significant differences in physiological appearance, however I do not think that much separates man from animal. Communication as Descartes explains is a critical distinguishing feature between man and animal. There has been evidence to show that communication in humans is innate and is not built on a foundation of learning theory. Communication in societies seems to aid in an acquisition of intellect, take for example chimpanzees, dolphins, and even mice. Community and society cause a requirement for the members to be able to get along in order to ensure a greater chance for survival. Perhaps the primary contributing factor for the acquisition of human reason was simply the close confines they were forced to have as they over populated the planet, and as they continue to do so the pressure to control, rationalize, and reason will be forced to grow exponentially. Feral and isolate children provide the perfect case for my theory, seeing as they have little if any exposure with a human community, due to this impairment we see a perhaps a human lacking in reason, and a human who has missed the critical period for the acquisition of language. As Descartes insisted it is one of the only distinguishing feature between man and animal. In lacking the ability to communicate as well as formulate reason are these humans simply inhuman? Or is reason a sociological acquired mechanism that aids in the survival of humans, and is this minuscule difference the only thing that makes man different from animal?
All sources are available, I had to re-type the last paragraph because I cannot access the file.
No comments:
Post a Comment