wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/24/83)
There are times when enough is too much. Here we have the latest missive from Tom Craver: ... are you saying that you dont have to think to understand? No, just that I can think without being t-logical (logical to Tom Craver). You say you could define a class that is "*EXACTLY that which is commonly referred to as "human", which would be "a group ... which are defined by their ability to learn and use rules of phrase-structure grammars." First, let me point out that you are therefore excluding those who are unable to learn language - though they are commonly considered humans. What sorts of persons are you referring to? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you know that sign-language is based on phrase-structure rules? Do you know that mental retardation must be VERY severe before the person loses his language ability? Do you know that if the 'language-area' of the brain is damaged, the ability will often reappear after a few years? Secondly, what do you suppose that "ability to learn..." is called? I call it "rationality" - though that is not the only thing that rationality allows one to do. At this point, I must throw up my hands in frustration. Tom, you use words that mean things completely different from anyone else! Let us see what The American Heritage Dictionary (second college edition) has to say: rational (adj.) 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane. 3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: *rational behavior* [italics theirs'] Nothing about learning ability here, Tom. learning (n.) 1. Instruction, education. 2. Acquired wisdom, knowledge, or skill. Nothing about logic or rationality here, Tom. Concepts are not born into humans- they are created or re-created (learned) by use of reason. Have you ever heard of a gent named Noam Chomsky? I picked phrase-structure grammars specifically because they seem to be inborn, and are therefore perhaps the only thing that might be characteristic of your mythical "innate human nature." As to the two men and the sword - I would not knowingly give him a weapon in his (irrational) state of mind, lest I become an accomplice to murder... Who said anythign about A being irrational? All I said was that he was angry, and he need not be even that. He might have worked out his anger before visiting B. ...there is also the cause that the other is one's friend, and one (selfishly) might not want the friend to get in trouble. Who said anything about A getting into trouble? If he's careful, he might get away with it. Also, don't forget that to the Greeks, women were second-class citizens, and considered as legal property. A's trouble is something you are inventing to get you out of the problem. Do you suppose that having a friend mad at you is of equal importance with having him commit a murder? Who said anything about him being mad? He might do more than just be mad; he might attack or kill B. All that I specified was that harm would come to B if he didn't keep his word and return the sword. And how have you assigned importance to murders of people you dont' know? B may not know A's wife, or her lover? Why should he (selfishly) care? Also, even if you don't give him the sword, what guarantee do you have that he won't commit the murders some other way? Would one want a murderer for a friend? Who says you have to go on being friends with him? You could (selfishly) give him the sword, and then (selfishly) stop being friends with him, because as a rational person, you don't want a murderer for a friend. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex