Ho I love this movie! Let us continue to watch this movie!
Anyway. The language bit. Everybody was all like: it's impossible to connect to each other and understand each other and whatnot. But that's not really so. Our ability to understand each other really depends on our similarities. Since we're all pretty similar, we understand each other. Like, if I say love and you say love, I get what you're talking about.
It gets harder as you get farther apart. It's harder for Christians to understand the concerns of Muslims. Now, we can teach a gorilla sign language and teach ourselves gorilla language, but we can't talk to a gorilla as well as we could to another person. We can be reasonably sure what are dog means when it does various things. But it'd be pretty difficult for us to tell how a lizard feels, right?
If you look at this list you might realize that the animals on it are going down in a hierarchy of intelligence. What intelligence really is is how well you can communicate. I mean, what do they test you on on the SATs? Can you write? Can you undestand what other people write? Can understand the math problems that other people have made up and make other people understand how you did them? And really everything you learn is also a test of communication because you learn it from somebody.
Since communication depends largely on similarities (other contigencies are the situation, how hard each side isi trying, etc.), obviously humans give other animals low scores on intelligence. But who knows if its really so?
So look, everything you know is a result of communication, and so are a lot of the things that you are. I definitely think there's a hierarchy of how well we can communicate, but that's not to say that we're all alone. Connection with others is possible; language is the facilitator.
"Since we're all pretty similar" is as pretty huge assumption to make.
Isn't such an assumption exclusively based on your observations of-- and therefore your communications with-- others?
Therefore, your use of that assumption to argue for the stability of meaning within communication is a circular argument... but then again, to make such a critique, I might be making the same assumptions...
3 comments:
Ho I love this movie! Let us continue to watch this movie!
Anyway. The language bit. Everybody was all like: it's impossible to connect to each other and understand each other and whatnot. But that's not really so. Our ability to understand each other really depends on our similarities. Since we're all pretty similar, we understand each other. Like, if I say love and you say love, I get what you're talking about.
It gets harder as you get farther apart. It's harder for Christians to understand the concerns of Muslims. Now, we can teach a gorilla sign language and teach ourselves gorilla language, but we can't talk to a gorilla as well as we could to another person. We can be reasonably sure what are dog means when it does various things. But it'd be pretty difficult for us to tell how a lizard feels, right?
If you look at this list you might realize that the animals on it are going down in a hierarchy of intelligence. What intelligence really is is how well you can communicate. I mean, what do they test you on on the SATs? Can you write? Can you undestand what other people write? Can understand the math problems that other people have made up and make other people understand how you did them? And really everything you learn is also a test of communication because you learn it from somebody.
Since communication depends largely on similarities (other contigencies are the situation, how hard each side isi trying, etc.), obviously humans give other animals low scores on intelligence. But who knows if its really so?
So look, everything you know is a result of communication, and so are a lot of the things that you are. I definitely think there's a hierarchy of how well we can communicate, but that's not to say that we're all alone. Connection with others is possible; language is the facilitator.
Glad you like this movie!
"Since we're all pretty similar" is as pretty huge assumption to make.
Isn't such an assumption exclusively based on your observations of-- and therefore your communications with-- others?
Therefore, your use of that assumption to argue for the stability of meaning within communication is a circular argument... but then again, to make such a critique, I might be making the same assumptions...
Another thought:
Who do you think would be more likely to 'understand' Muslims: a Christian or an atheist?
Can we elaborate on what it truly means to 'understand' another? (This question will forever fascinate me!)
Post a Comment