Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

Patrick Dunn:
> And Rosta wrote:
> > Given the view of language as a tool, which is not illegitimate
> > (and not even impoverished, if we hold that it is a poetical
> > tool and a tool for embodying culture), then as with any tool
> > it is possible to articulate a set of criteria to gauge how
> > well a given design succeeds in performing the functions the
> > tool is to serve
>
> But the problem is, language *isn't* a tool.  A telephone is a
> tool.  A writing system is a tool.  But a language is no more a
> tool than my foot is a tool: it's a part of what it means to be
> human.  Even if you don't buy Chomsky (and I don't, completely),
> it's hard to get away from the fact that language is at least
> somewhat inherent
I probably don't grasp your point, because I don't perceive an
incompatibility between language being seen as a tool and
language being part of what it is to be human.

I suspect that Andrew's idea is that if language were like a
foot, then he'd be interested in designing a bionic foot. I
don't see a problem with being interested in designing bionic
feet. Nor do I see a problem with not being interested in it.

--And.