Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 3:36
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.