[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein on Analytic Marxism

2009-08-14 Thread c b
Some might conclude that the relatively hard line adopted in my Essays
toward the alien-class origins of DM sits rather awkwardly with the
apparently uncritical acceptance of ideas drawn from Wittgenstein's
work --, an allegedly bourgeois philosopher and mystic himself.

^
CB: The class of the originators of DM , Marx and Engels, was petit
bourgeois and bourgeois ( smile)

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein on Analytic Marxism

2009-08-14 Thread Ralph Dumain
As I've said, Rosa combines two ideological tendencies of the undead, 
Trotskyism and Wittgenstein, either of which will suck the life force 
out of you. This obsession with the formulas of dialectical 
materialism--to defend or attack it--is simply childish, as it's only 
a drop in the bucket of how dialectical analysis has been formulated 
and applied. Even the Soviet tradition had something to say in its 
critiques of neopositivism and irrationalism. But what about Lukacs, 
the Frankfurt School, the Yugoslav Praxis School, Ilyenkov, Tony 
Smith? Rosa is a small-minded jackass, for which we can thank both 
Trotskyism and analytical philosophy. And as for the interaction of 
analytical philosophy with Marxism, why waste time being bored 
shitless with analytical Marxism; one could turn to the Poznan 
School. Just to give one old example of how dialectical thought was 
interjected into the cloistered realm of Anglo-American social theory:

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/poznan5.htmlLogic, 
Dialectics, Politics: Some Recent Controversies by Hayward R. Alker, Jr. (1982)

Oh for the day when the last Stalinist is strangled with the entrails 
of the last Trotskyist.

At 02:59 PM 8/14/2009, c b wrote:
Some might conclude that the relatively hard line adopted in my Essays
toward the alien-class origins of DM sits rather awkwardly with the
apparently uncritical acceptance of ideas drawn from Wittgenstein's
work --, an allegedly bourgeois philosopher and mystic himself.

^
CB: The class of the originators of DM , Marx and Engels, was petit
bourgeois and bourgeois ( smile)
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein on Analytic Marxism

2009-08-13 Thread Jim Farmelant


In response to this:
 
http://www.marxmail.org/msg66028.html
 
It is worth adding that Donald Davidson was a socialist, too, as were
Gilbert Ryle and John Austin. Wittgenstein himself declared he was a
'communist at heart', wanted to move to Russia (since he was in agreement
with the gains made by workers after the 1917 revolution), and attributed
the most important ideas of his later period to Sraffa. Moreover, Rush
Rees at one point wanted to join the UK-Trotskyist RCP and many of
Wittgenstein's other disciples were also lefties (for example, Gasking).
 
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Wittgenstein.htm
 
If anything, it's dialecticians who are the conservatives, since they are
quite happy to ape the dogmatic and a priori thought-forms of traditional
philosophy.
 
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm
 
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm
 
Rosa!
 

Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems.  Click here for more 
info.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQZarUXSCVKfnEhDAaVYTV0ep5QHjFAIRWyOlszWz8fsLH2v88JP6/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-26 Thread Charles Brown
This article does not raise the
issue of symbols. It turns on
imitative learning. But my
anaylsis assumes that animals
can imitate - monkey see, monkey do.
It is symboling that they can't do.
They can't understand the concept
of representation; or at least
not abstractly enough to do
it tens of thousands of times
readily. A chimp can learn to sssoicate
 a limited number of words
with their referants. Even a 
dog can learn to associate a few
words with referents. It's name,
commands like sit , rollover.
fetch. but they don't seem
to be able to generalize to the
concept of word enough to build
the giant vocabularies that 
humans readily achieve. sit, rollover
fetch etc. are built up through
conditioned learning links between
words and behaviors

CJ can help me to elaborate on
the characteristics of full
language

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/animal-culture-info.htm

On a grassy slope above the shore of Lake Tanganyika
 in the east African nation of Tanzania, two male chimpanzees spot a hole in 
the ground, into which a long column of ants is 
marching. The chimps pause for a moment beneath the light drizzle of an early 
morning rain and then amble to the hole—the 
entrance to the ants' nest—for a closer inspection. The chimpanzees, lifetime 
residents of Tanzania's Gombe Stream 
National Park, expertly select several long sticks and sit down beside the 
nest. Slowly, each of them extends a stick into
 the hole and watches as some of the ants swarm up the probe. As soon as either 
of the chimps gauges that the lower half 
of the stick has become covered with ants, he extracts it from the nest. He 
then quickly gathers the tasty insects from the stick with his free hand and 
pops them into his mouth.

Across the continent in the Tai Forest of 
western Africa's Ivory Coast, two other male chimps have also discovered a nest 
of ants. They each find a suitable tool—a 
short stick, rather than the long probes favored by the Gombe chimps-and begin 
dipping it into the nest entrance to 
fish for a meal. After the ants guarding the nest climb up the sticks, the 
chimps sweep the sticks directly across their
 smacking lips and, without using their hands, draw the ants into their mouths.

At the same time that the chimps are enjoying their morning snacks, two other 
mealtime rituals are being played 
out by other primates (the order of mammals that includes humans, apes, and 
monkeys) far to the west. In St. Louis,
 Missouri, two human families—one whose ancestors came from Asia and the other 
whose forebears originated in Europe—sit 
down to dinner at separate tables in a Chinese restaurant. Both families order 
their favorite dish of spicy orange 
chicken. When the food is served, the Asian family begins eating its meal with 
chopsticks, while the other family picks up forks.

Since the dish could be eaten with either 
chopsticks or forks, the preference for one type of utensil over another is 
simply a reflection of cultural differences
 between the two families. There's nothing unusual about that. But what about 
the differences in the ways the Gombe 
and Tai chimpanzees perform ant fishing? Could those individual preferences 
also reflect differences in 
culture? Since all of the chimps are of the same species, it is unlikely that 
genetic differences could account for 
the variations in behavior. Thus, the different approaches to a similar task, 
ant fishing, are likely to be learned 
behaviors within the Gombe and Tai social groups. That means that knowledge may 
have been passed from one chimp to another. In other words, the chimps seem to 
be exhibiting behavior that 
could be called culture.

Social scientists have long maintained, however,
 that only humans are capable of possessing culture. Are they wrong? Do 
chimpanzees—and perhaps even other animals, 
such as monkeys, whales, and birds—also possess a form of culture? Many 
scientists in 2000 believed that the answer to that question is yes. But others 
insisted that culture is a purely human 
phenomenon.
What Do Scientists Mean By “culture?”
Scientists have debated whether animals have 
culture at least since the late 1800's, when the British physiologist and 
psychologist George Romanes proposed that 

some animals display behaviors that indicate a high degree of intelligence and 
an ability to learn. Other scientists,
 however, disagreed with this conclusion, believing that animal behavior is 
hard-wired in the brain. Over the years,
 scientists on both sides of the issue divided themselves into two camps, the 
culturalists and the anticulturalists. 
The culturalists contend that animals are a lot smarter and more adaptable than 
most people think. The anticulturalists argue that animals, regardless of their 
intelligence, are incapable of culture.

Central to this debate is defining what 
exactly is meant by culture. One requirement for culture that is accepted by 
scientists on both sides of the issue 
is imitation, or learning 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-25 Thread Charles Brown
CB: On your comments below, notice
I said language and culture. Material culture
might be thought of as the products
of gestures. In my hypothesis , the
nature of symbols as the use of 
something to represent something it is
not is critical. The critical communication
is not between living humans, except that
between adults and children, but the communication
between living and dead generations.
More specifically I am thinking symbols
allow the dead generation to teach the
living generation ( or the living generation
to teach the unborn generations) in a way that
teaching through imitation cannot occur.
Birds and monkeys and humans can learn by imitation -
monkey see, monkey do. But only humans can
through symbols, whether speech, gestures
or material cultural items. Symbols can cross
the boundary between the living and the dead
( in a non-mystical sense), in a way that
 imitations cannot. Why ? Because the dead are
no longer present themselves to be imitated. But
if the dead are represented, if the experineces
of the dead are represented by something that
is not the dead, by a symbol, then the something
that is not the dead , that is not dead, can
get across the death barrier.

Language actually is the most efficient of
these death barrier crossers. However,
language need not be _spoken_, it can
be gestures, i.e. sign language. Or it
could be a form of written, but non-
alphabetical language, as in abstract use
 of material objects as the symbolic 
elements, tokens. Anyway, my hypothesis
suggest spoken or sign language had to
be very early at the origin of our
species, because, story tellikng would
be the most effective death barrier 
crosser.

This is why I think Rosa's opposition
between representation and communication
can be happily resolved at the origin
of language and human thinking, because
originally language was representational
or symbolic in order to be communicative
across generations, between dead and 
living.


CeJ jannuzi 
Interesting that Rosa should mention
Lamarckianism in this context, as
I have argued that culture and
language give humans a Lamarckian-like
adaptive mechanism. Culture and language
, symboling, allow inheritance of
acquired, extra-somatic , characteristics.

I think that would be a genetic mutation, except a genetic mutation
really only seems to transcend soma, and doesn't actually (Lamarck and
Lysenko weren't completely wrong).

The ability to gesture complexly emerged from our biology and brain
capacity, and this ability to systematize, embed meaning and
communicate symbolically then colonized our well-developed phonetic
abilities (we could chatter like the birds and then we learned to
communicate). Instead of asking what separates us from the apes, we
ought to ask what separates us from a mockingbird or parrot?
Corballis's fascinating book could have been made better had he
collaborated with an articulatory phonologist, like someone at Haskins
Laboratory.




Michael Corballis is a psychologist with a strong interest in
lateralization, handedness, and the origins of language. In this book,
he puts these interests together with a solid and comprehensive survey
of other background material relevant to the origins of language. The
book also pushes Corballis' own specific hypothesis, that human
languages were implemented mainly in manual gestures until about
50,000 years ago, at which point largely vocal language took over as
an invented cultural innovation. This is an argument about the medium
in which linguistic messages were expressed.

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-25 Thread CeJ
Language actually is the most efficient of
these death barrier crossers. However,
language need not be _spoken_, it can
be gestures, i.e. sign language. Or it
could be a form of written, but non-
alphabetical language, as in abstract use
 of material objects as the symbolic
elements, tokens. Anyway, my hypothesis
suggest spoken or sign language had to
be very early at the origin of our
species, because, story tellikng would
be the most effective death barrier
crosser.


Well have already had the discussion about language being both
arbitrary and motivated, with motivation often stemming from how
interconnected 'speaking' a language is with our bodies and our
gestures. I would suppose in the oral tradition stories crossed
individuals, generations and the death barrier because they were
enacted and remembered and then enacted again. And enactment might
include verbal explanation in narrative form, drawings in the dirt,
dance, chanting and song--and cave paintings.

I wonder how much practical knowledge survives because we have
supplemented our abilities with literacy. But on the other hand, how
literacy (and now literacy on computers) means the death of oral
traditions (certainly ones that go beyond families into a tribal or
nation level).

Also, do you think  other animals have an ability to use language
across generations? It has been noted how groups of animals within a
species will display their own 'culture'.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-25 Thread CeJ
 Also, do you think  other animals have an ability to use language
 across generations? It has been noted how groups of animals within a
 species will display their own 'culture'.

I should have stated it more carefully considering what you had
written earlier. I mean, do you think animals can do what humans do
across generations without imitation? For example, might an ape see
the tools another ape has used and seen the results (leftover food)
and figured out to use the tools to , for example, crack nuts, without
being shown?

OTOH, the sort of indirect, transgenerational 'symbolling' you are
talking about, how important is it to human culture? It seems
important for well developed technologies and some special skills (but
most are taught directly). And isn't it really a secondary result of
our more primary abilities to communicate using language and symbolic
representation (either arbitrary and/or motivated or a mix of both)
and more direct interaction (although modern multi-media makes it
difficult to say what is and what is not direct).

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-24 Thread CeJ
Interesting that Rosa should mention
Lamarckianism in this context, as
I have argued that culture and
language give humans a Lamarckian-like
adaptive mechanism. Culture and language
, symboling, allow inheritance of
acquired, extra-somatic , characteristics.

I think that would be a genetic mutation, except a genetic mutation
really only seems to transcend soma, and doesn't actually (Lamarck and
Lysenko weren't completely wrong).

The ability to gesture complexly emerged from our biology and brain
capacity, and this ability to systematize, embed meaning and
communicate symbolically then colonized our well-developed phonetic
abilities (we could chatter like the birds and then we learned to
communicate). Instead of asking what separates us from the apes, we
ought to ask what separates us from a mockingbird or parrot?
Corballis's fascinating book could have been made better had he
collaborated with an articulatory phonologist, like someone at Haskins
Laboratory.

I am somewhat skeptical about there ever being an isolated, unitary
'language acquisition device' in humans (such as what Chomsky
theorized without really ever elaborating on or ever pursuing in any
empirical way). In which case, we would possibly be led down the path
of saying individual development of the language recapitulates the
species development without really saying what we meant by that. It's
just another theoretical black box in linguistics.

Rather, I see it as reflecting the plasticity of the brain and the
specialization of 'general learning' before puberty (in fact, from the
time of development in the womb to about the age of 6).



http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=yEd_FchjDDMCdq=hand+to+mouth+corballishl=ensource=gbs_summary_scad=0

It is often said that speech is what distinguishes us from other
animals. But are we all talk? What if language was bequeathed to us
not by word of mouth, but as a hand-me-down? The notion that language
evolved not from animal cries but from manual and facial
gestures--that, for most of human history, actions have spoken louder
than words--has been around since Condillac. But never before has
anyone developed a full-fledged theory of how, why, and with what
effects language evolved from a gestural system to the spoken word.
Marshaling far-flung evidence from anthropology, animal behavior,
neurology, molecular biology, anatomy, linguistics, and evolutionary
psychology, Michael Corballis makes the case that language developed,
with the emergence of Homo sapiens, from primate gestures to a true
signed language, complete with grammar and syntax and at best
punctuated with grunts and other vocalizations. While vocal utterance
played an increasingly important complementary role, autonomous speech
did not appear until about 50,000 years ago--much later than generally
believed. Bringing in significant new evidence to bolster what has
been a minority view, Corballis goes beyond earlier supporters of a
gestural theory by suggesting why speech eventually (but not
completely!) supplanted gesture. He then uses this milestone to
account for the artistic explosion and demographic triumph of the
particular group of Homo sapiens from whom we are descended. And he
asserts that speech, like written language, was a cultural invention
and not a biological fait accompli. Writing with wit and eloquence,
Corballis makes nimble reference to literature, mythology, natural
history, sports, and contemporary politics as he explains in
fascinating detail what we now know about such varied subjects as
early hominid evolution, modern signed languages, and the causes of
left-handedness.From Hand to Mouthwill have scholars and laymen alike
talking--and sometimes gesturing--for years to come.

http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~jim/corballisrevu.html

 Michael Corballis is a psychologist with a strong interest in
lateralization, handedness, and the origins of language. In this book,
he puts these interests together with a solid and comprehensive survey
of other background material relevant to the origins of language. The
book also pushes Corballis' own specific hypothesis, that human
languages were implemented mainly in manual gestures until about
50,000 years ago, at which point largely vocal language took over as
an invented cultural innovation. This is an argument about the medium
in which linguistic messages were expressed. Corballis believes that
the human capacity for generative syntactic language may possibly be
as old as one million years. The argument is much less about when true
linguistic generativity arose than about the hypothesized relatively
recent switch to the vocal medium.

While conceding that Corballis succeeds in showing that this late
switch to vocal language was possible, it still seems to me to be very
unlikely. Corballis claims that the hominins of 150,000 years ago
communicated mainly by manual gestures, but were (and here he agrees
with the dominant view) biologically essentially the same as modern
humans. Thus, they would 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-24 Thread CeJ
Interesting that Rosa should mention
Lamarckianism in this context, as
I have argued that culture and
language give humans a Lamarckian-like
adaptive mechanism. Culture and language
, symboling, allow inheritance of
acquired, extra-somatic , characteristics.

I think that would be a genetic mutation, except a genetic mutation
really only seems to transcend soma, and doesn't actually (Lamarck and
Lysenko weren't completely wrong).

The ability to gesture complexly emerged from our biology and brain
capacity, and this ability to systematize, embed meaning and
communicate symbolically then colonized our well-developed phonetic
abilities (we could chatter like the birds and then we learned to
communicate). Instead of asking what separates us from the apes, we
ought to ask what separates us from a mockingbird or parrot?
Corballis's fascinating book could have been made better had he
collaborated with an articulatory phonologist, like someone at Haskins
Laboratory.

I am somewhat skeptical about there ever being an isolated, unitary
'language acquisition device' in humans (such as what Chomsky
theorized without really ever elaborating on or ever pursuing in any
empirical way). In which case, we would possibly be led down the path
of saying individual development of the language recapitulates the
species development without really saying what we meant by that. It's
just another theoretical black box in linguistics.

Rather, I see it as reflecting the plasticity of the brain and the
specialization of 'general learning' before puberty (in fact, from the
time of development in the womb to about the age of 6).



http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=yEd_FchjDDMCdq=hand+to+mouth+corballishl=ensource=gbs_summary_scad=0

It is often said that speech is what distinguishes us from other
animals. But are we all talk? What if language was bequeathed to us
not by word of mouth, but as a hand-me-down? The notion that language
evolved not from animal cries but from manual and facial
gestures--that, for most of human history, actions have spoken louder
than words--has been around since Condillac. But never before has
anyone developed a full-fledged theory of how, why, and with what
effects language evolved from a gestural system to the spoken word.
Marshaling far-flung evidence from anthropology, animal behavior,
neurology, molecular biology, anatomy, linguistics, and evolutionary
psychology, Michael Corballis makes the case that language developed,
with the emergence of Homo sapiens, from primate gestures to a true
signed language, complete with grammar and syntax and at best
punctuated with grunts and other vocalizations. While vocal utterance
played an increasingly important complementary role, autonomous speech
did not appear until about 50,000 years ago--much later than generally
believed. Bringing in significant new evidence to bolster what has
been a minority view, Corballis goes beyond earlier supporters of a
gestural theory by suggesting why speech eventually (but not
completely!) supplanted gesture. He then uses this milestone to
account for the artistic explosion and demographic triumph of the
particular group of Homo sapiens from whom we are descended. And he
asserts that speech, like written language, was a cultural invention
and not a biological fait accompli. Writing with wit and eloquence,
Corballis makes nimble reference to literature, mythology, natural
history, sports, and contemporary politics as he explains in
fascinating detail what we now know about such varied subjects as
early hominid evolution, modern signed languages, and the causes of
left-handedness.From Hand to Mouthwill have scholars and laymen alike
talking--and sometimes gesturing--for years to come.

http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~jim/corballisrevu.html

 Michael Corballis is a psychologist with a strong interest in
lateralization, handedness, and the origins of language. In this book,
he puts these interests together with a solid and comprehensive survey
of other background material relevant to the origins of language. The
book also pushes Corballis' own specific hypothesis, that human
languages were implemented mainly in manual gestures until about
50,000 years ago, at which point largely vocal language took over as
an invented cultural innovation. This is an argument about the medium
in which linguistic messages were expressed. Corballis believes that
the human capacity for generative syntactic language may possibly be
as old as one million years. The argument is much less about when true
linguistic generativity arose than about the hypothesized relatively
recent switch to the vocal medium.

While conceding that Corballis succeeds in showing that this late
switch to vocal language was possible, it still seems to me to be very
unlikely. Corballis claims that the hominins of 150,000 years ago
communicated mainly by manual gestures, but were (and here he agrees
with the dominant view) biologically essentially the same as modern
humans. Thus, they would 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-24 Thread CeJ
some kind of hiccup at gmail seems to have caused multiple posts. apologies.

cj

-- 
Japan Higher Education Outlook
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/

We are Feral Cats
http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-23 Thread farmela...@juno.com


Jim,

Essay Thirteen Part Three has finally been published -- 
on 'Mind', Language and 'Cognition'. It has been delayed 
many months since it is exceedingly long.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13_03.htm

Apart from Essay Twelve Part One, it is 
my most Wittgensteinian essay. 
Among other things, it debunks Voloshinov and Marcuse.

Regards,

Rosa!



Need cash? Click to get a cash advance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFRJ8wNls6O8GrKp6JENqjNNEiVlyEW7ILedaQT4hMrZbXqLMpyhi/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Forward from Rosa Lichtenstein

2009-02-23 Thread Charles Brown

Interesting that Rosa should mention 
Lamarckianism in this context, as
I have argued that culture and
language give humans a Lamarckian-like
adaptive mechanism. Culture and language
, symboling, allow inheritance of 
acquired, extra-somatic , characteristics.

CB

The 'Lamarckian' Origin Of Speech

 

On a related topic, despite the fact that most of what Parrington and Holborow 
say undermines the role that language plays in communication -- reinforcing the 
view that language serves to 'represent' things to us in our heads (even if 
this process is filtered through our own idiosyncrasies, social situations, 
prevailing ideologies, etc., etc.) --, they appear to believe that human beings 
developed language because of a need to communicate. This is how Holborow 
puts it:

 

The genesis of language is in human labour…. Communication is not therefore 
just one of the functions of language; on the contrary, language presupposes 
both logically and de facto the interaction among people. Language only arises 
from the need to communicate with other humans. It is quintessentially social. 
[Holborow (1999), p.20.]

 

Parrington clearly concurs:

 

Crucially labour…developed within a co-operative and social context. It was 
this that led, through the need to communicate while engaging in co-operative 
labour, to the rise of the second specifically human attribute -- language. 
[Parrington (1997), p.122.]88

 

While I do not wish to question the role that co-operative labour has played in 
the development of language and thought (quite the opposite, in fact), several 
other aspects of the above quotations seem highly dubious, especially the idea 
that human beings invented language because of a need to communicate. To be 
sure, we use language to communicate, but the claim that this arose because of 
a specific need to do so is highly questionable -- except, that is, for 
Lamarckians.

 

Of course, the word need is ambiguous itself. We use it in a variety of 
different ways. Consider just a few of these:

 

N1: That cake needs more sugar.

 

N2: This strike needs widening.

 

N3: Car owners need to put oil in their engines.

 

N4: We need a pay rise.

 

N5: The giraffe needs a long neck to browse tall trees.

 

N6: That drunk needs to go home.

 

N7: Plants need water.

 

N8: The state needs to be smashed and the ruling class needs overthrowing.

 

N9: Tony Blair and George W Bush need prosecuting as war criminals.

 

N10: Comrades need to shout louder on paper sales.89

 

Precisely which of the above senses of need these two comrades were using is 
unclear -- several of them relate to what can only be called felt needs, or 
conscious needs (e.g., N4, and possibly N2), expressed perhaps as part of an 
agent's aims, goals or intentions. Others refer to the causal concomitants or 
prerequisites of a flourishing organism, successful revolution, strike, 
comeuppance for Bush and Blair, paper sales or well-run engines -- all of which 
are largely, if not totally, unfelt. Some of course, cannot be felt.

 

Nevertheless, it is patently obvious that human beings could not have invented 
language as a result of a felt need to communicate (unless, that is, we 
assume they could think before they had developed language -- which would 
naturally imply that thought is not a social phenomenon, dependent on 
collective labour), since such a need would presuppose the very thing it was 
aimed at explaining. The idea that this type of necessity mothered that sort of 
invention would imply that the first human beings to talk had earlier formed 
the thought: I/We need to communicate (or something equivalent in their 
proto-language). Clearly, such a felt need to communicate could only be 
expressed if language already existed. On the other hand, if the thought (or 
its equivalent) that supposedly  motivated the need to communicate was not in 
fact linguistic, then little content can be given to the notion that human 
beings once possessed such a need without being able to
 give voice to it. Indeed, how would it be possible to form the thought We 
need to communicate if the individual or individuals concerned had no idea 
(yet) what communication was. That would be like saying that we can (now) form 
the thought We need to schmunicate when none of has a clue what schmunicate 
means. [In fact, it is worse, since we are already sophisticated language 
users.]

 

It could be objected to this that such a need could be a biological one 
(analogous to that expressed, say, in N5). However, there are two problems with 
this response. First, reference to the biological needs of organisms to explain 
the origin of adaptation is Lamarckian, not Darwinian. Secondly, and far worse, 
this alternative in fact completely undermines the view that language is a 
social phenomenon.89a


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe