Syllogisms...
Example:
All humans are sinners.
Paul is a human.
Paul is a sinner.
This syllogism is valid: if all humans are sinners, and Paul is one of those humans, he must be a sinner as well.
Here's another example:
All humans are excellent hunters.
Helen is an excellent hunter.
Helen is a human.
This one is not valid: ignore the fact that not all humans are excellent hunters for the moment and consider, what if Helen is a lioness? She may be an excellent hunter, but a human she's not. One way to make this syllogism valid would be to change All into Only...
Only humans are excellent hunters.
Helen is an excellent hunter.
Helen is a human.
Now it is valid. But it isn't true, is it? Or maybe it is? Depends on your idea of what an excellent hunter is. Readers of The Most Dangerous Game can attest that there is something to be said about the ability of humans to reason.
Let's go back to my first example, about Paul and his sordid transgressions, and discuss the truth or falsity of it:
All humans are sinners. As a Christian and believer in God's Word, this is something I believe to be true. For me, the syllogism is valid and true. I really don't think that anyone can deny that they have done something wrong at some point in their life, but different people do have different moral compasses. People's respective opinions on what is wrong and what is right will no doubt differ from one person to the next. A mass murderer might justify what he does by thinking that we are just animals running around in the aftermath of this "big bang," and that what we do doesn't really matter. Of course there are plenty of believers in these theories who would never kill anyone, so please don't take offense from this; and there are believers in God who commit murder as well. All of this to say, "All humans are sinners" is a statement that has a meaning interpreted differently by everyone. But I do believe that there are certain universal, inexorable truths in the world, and I believe that this syllogism is not only valid, as I have defended, but True.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Optical Illusions as Metaphors
This image is from the artist Shigeo Fukuda. (Source: http://blog.miragestudio7.com/2006/05/architecture-and-optical-illusion/) In case it it not entirely clear as to what this image is, let me explain. It is a photo of a sculpture and its reflection in an adjacent mirror. We can see a piano in the glass, but when we look at the thing from a different angle, we see a deformed monstrosity, bearing very little semblance to real a piano. Indeed, many who look at this photo will be incredulous that it hasn't been doctored in some way. It is hard to believe that the sculpture would look like a piano at any angle, but it does. We humans are wont to seeing things one and only one way. That this could actually look like a piano might be very hard for some to grasp (myself included!).
The topic of this assignment is focusing on the metaphorical or symbolical use of optical illusions. Like most artists, Shigeo did not go through the immense effort of making this work purely for the fun of it; he is sure to have a meaning behind it. What I believe Shigeo is trying to say is that something or someone can have an outward appearance, or façade if you will, that is deceptive as to its true nature. People can change how they act around other people, and behave and talk the way that they know they are expected to. This is just a front, and to approach them from a different angle, or to get closer to them, would be to expose their true character. The reflection of the piano looks perfect, and it has been made to look that way. What happens when we see the true form of the sculpture? What happens when someone lets slip a secret that they perhaps did not intend to disclose? We see the true character. How we interpret what we see is different to every individual. Some may look at the sculpture above, and their response could be, "Man, that is actually an ugly sculpture." It might, on the other hand, attract their imagination, inspire them. The idea is that we cannot always take what we see at face value. We should always inspect, investigate, endeavour to learn as much as we can about our world, in order to truly understand its wonders.
Of course, art is all about interpretation, and it's different for everyone! If anyone who reads this blog wants to leave comments on how they interpret this sculpture, then please feel free to do so!
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Animals and their Use (or lack thereof) of Language
Two questions: Do animals use language? Do animals communicate?
To the latter posed question, the answer is yes, they certainly do! What do birds communicate when they chirp and whistle their eloquent songs? This is my territory—Stay away from my nest. Bees use elaborate dances to communicate to their hive where honey is to be found. Ants leave pheromone trails that lead the other ants to food. When a cobra opens its hood or a rattlesnake rattles its tail, they are communicating a warning: stay away. Whatever the case, it is apparent that animals communicate, and usually, their meaning comes across quite clearly. That is to say, other animals can interpret and understand communication.
What about the first question? Do animals use language?
We have already established that animals can communicate with one another, so the real question has to be, "Are language and communication synonymous?" Let us look to the dictionary's definition of the words, so that we might compare and contrast them.
Language:
"A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition."
That's just one definition; there are more: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language
Communication:
"The imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs."
What can be determined from these definitions is that communication encompasses more than does language, as communication includes language, and language itself is more specific. Language is about the use of words, or sound we make with our mouths, and the use of those words to communicate our thoughts and ideas with each other. Language also discriminates nationality, wheras communication is universal (e.g. a person looking menacingly at someone and cracking their knuckles communicates violence, which anyone can understand; however, if a French person tells an American, "I am going to kill you" in French, the American probably won't understand). Animals don't use words. They don't have a phonetic system or alphabet, and are incapable of expressing specific ideas. But wait, don't animals use sounds? Dogs bark when something alerts them, cats purr when they are content. Does that not fall under language? No. A dog's bark is akin to a man's nondescript grunt of pain, a cat's purr like a satisfied sigh of relief. These are not language specific, for they are broad and universally understood methods of communication.
To that end, I have come to the conclusion that animals, whilst certainly adept at communication, do not use language. However, it is worth noting that different people might have different interpretations on the word language and its definitions. Some might argue that language and communication are indeed the same thing, more or less, and that language includes communication (body language?). My personal opinion is that communication includes language, and if language included communication, the broader term, the respective definitions of the words would be lost. So we must stick to the definitions of the words, and this is why I say that animals do not use language.
*As far as the argument between Dolly and Guy is concerned, I believe that I have provided analysis of both sides of the argument enough to represent the dialogue. Hopefully no further summarisation is neccessary; I feel that I have covered all of the points well enough. I did read the pages, naturally, and it did help me to formulate my ideas and opinions on the matter.
To the latter posed question, the answer is yes, they certainly do! What do birds communicate when they chirp and whistle their eloquent songs? This is my territory—Stay away from my nest. Bees use elaborate dances to communicate to their hive where honey is to be found. Ants leave pheromone trails that lead the other ants to food. When a cobra opens its hood or a rattlesnake rattles its tail, they are communicating a warning: stay away. Whatever the case, it is apparent that animals communicate, and usually, their meaning comes across quite clearly. That is to say, other animals can interpret and understand communication.
What about the first question? Do animals use language?
We have already established that animals can communicate with one another, so the real question has to be, "Are language and communication synonymous?" Let us look to the dictionary's definition of the words, so that we might compare and contrast them.
Language:
"A body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition."
That's just one definition; there are more: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language
Communication:
"The imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs."
What can be determined from these definitions is that communication encompasses more than does language, as communication includes language, and language itself is more specific. Language is about the use of words, or sound we make with our mouths, and the use of those words to communicate our thoughts and ideas with each other. Language also discriminates nationality, wheras communication is universal (e.g. a person looking menacingly at someone and cracking their knuckles communicates violence, which anyone can understand; however, if a French person tells an American, "I am going to kill you" in French, the American probably won't understand). Animals don't use words. They don't have a phonetic system or alphabet, and are incapable of expressing specific ideas. But wait, don't animals use sounds? Dogs bark when something alerts them, cats purr when they are content. Does that not fall under language? No. A dog's bark is akin to a man's nondescript grunt of pain, a cat's purr like a satisfied sigh of relief. These are not language specific, for they are broad and universally understood methods of communication.
To that end, I have come to the conclusion that animals, whilst certainly adept at communication, do not use language. However, it is worth noting that different people might have different interpretations on the word language and its definitions. Some might argue that language and communication are indeed the same thing, more or less, and that language includes communication (body language?). My personal opinion is that communication includes language, and if language included communication, the broader term, the respective definitions of the words would be lost. So we must stick to the definitions of the words, and this is why I say that animals do not use language.
*As far as the argument between Dolly and Guy is concerned, I believe that I have provided analysis of both sides of the argument enough to represent the dialogue. Hopefully no further summarisation is neccessary; I feel that I have covered all of the points well enough. I did read the pages, naturally, and it did help me to formulate my ideas and opinions on the matter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)