When PlaÂto defined humans as two-legged aniÂmals withÂout feathÂers, I susÂpect he was only half seriÂous. Or if he was as humorÂless as some supÂpose, his antagÂoÂnist DioÂgenes the CynÂic cerÂtainÂly picked up on the joke, pointÂing out that the descripÂtion sounds pretÂty much like a plucked chickÂen. The ancient back and forth illusÂtrates a quesÂtion that has occuÂpied philosoÂphers for many thouÂsands of years: what sepÂaÂrates humans from aniÂmals? Is it a soul? RatioÂnalÂiÂty? Tool-makÂing? Most accounts, espeÂcialÂly most modÂern accounts, setÂtle on one cruÂcial difference—language. Although aniÂmals can comÂmuÂniÂcate with each othÂer perÂfectÂly well, they do so withÂout this amazÂingÂly sophisÂtiÂcatÂed facÂulÂty we so often take for grantÂed.
In the aniÂmatÂed video at the top, part of the BBC and Open University’s A HisÂtoÂry of Ideas series, Gillian AnderÂson, in her British rather than AmerÂiÂcan accent, explains the well-known theÂoÂry of lanÂguage acquiÂsiÂtion proÂposed by linÂguist Noam ChomÂsky in the 60s. ChomÂsky argued for what is known as a “uniÂverÂsal gramÂmar,” a kind of temÂplate in the strucÂture of the brain that allows every perÂson of norÂmal abilÂiÂty to learn their native lanÂguage with relÂaÂtive ease as a child. ChomÂsky referred to these strucÂtures as a “lanÂguage acquiÂsiÂtion device” that orgaÂnizes gramÂmar and synÂtax indeÂpenÂdentÂly of expeÂriÂence or outÂside stimÂuli, of which we have preÂcious litÂtle in our forÂmaÂtive years. DoubtÂless Chomsky’s theÂoÂry would have perÂsuadÂed PlaÂto, though probÂaÂbly not the British empiriÂcists of the 17th cenÂtuÂry, who argued that the human mind has no innate ideas—that all of our abilÂiÂties are learned.
Such was the arguÂment, much simÂpliÂfied, of John Locke, physiÂcian, philosoÂpher, and politÂiÂcal theÂoÂrist. In his far-rangÂing philoÂsophÂiÂcal text An Essay ConÂcernÂing Human UnderÂstandÂing and the more focused and digestible Some Thoughts ConÂcernÂing EduÂcaÂtion, Locke disÂcussed in depth his theÂoÂries of human cogÂniÂtion and idenÂtiÂty, proposÂing not only that the mind could be writÂten upon like a tabÂuÂla rasa—or “blank slate”—but that the key to human idenÂtiÂty, that which makes us the same perÂson from moment to moment, is memÂoÂry. We are—and are responÂsiÂble for, Locke argued—what we rememÂber. ConÂverseÂly, we are not responÂsiÂble for what we don’t rememÂber. Locke’s theÂoÂry presents us with some very thorny ethÂiÂcal probÂlems, which the video above mostÂly avoids, but like Chomsky’s interÂvenÂtion into debates about human vs. aniÂmal intelÂliÂgence, Locke’s disÂcusÂsion of the nature of human “perÂsonÂhood” remains a timeÂly conÂcern, and an endÂlessÂly conÂtentious one.
OthÂer videos in the series take on equalÂly conÂtentious, and equalÂly timeÂly, issues. Above, AnderÂson briefly explains Karl Marx’s theÂoÂry of the alienÂation of labor under an exploitaÂtive capÂiÂtalÂist sysÂtem, and below, she disÂcussÂes the role of culÂture as a uniqueÂly human trait that aniÂmals do not posÂsess. Each video addressÂes, in some small part, the quesÂtion “What Makes Me Human?” and the series as a whole folÂlows quickÂly on the heels of A HisÂtoÂry of Ideas’ preÂviÂous set of AnderÂson-narÂratÂed aniÂmaÂtions on the oriÂgins of the uniÂverse: “How Did EveryÂthing Begin?”
Once again drawÂing on the skilled work of aniÂmaÂtor Andrew Park and scripts by indeÂpenÂdent philosoÂpher Nigel WarÂburÂton, this latÂest series of videos offers a numÂber of fasÂciÂnatÂing appeÂtizÂers in the ways phiÂlosÂoÂphy, sciÂence, and reliÂgion have approached life’s biggest quesÂtions. Like any starter course, howÂevÂer, these are but a taste of the comÂplexÂiÂty and richÂness on offer in WestÂern philoÂsophÂiÂcal hisÂtoÂry. To become a true intelÂlecÂtuÂal gourÂmand, browse our menu of free phiÂlosÂoÂphy coursÂes and dig in to the work of thinkers like ChomÂsky, Locke, Marx, and so many more.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
Leave a Reply