Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

On Wednesday 22 January 2003 3:15 am, you wrote:
> 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've come to the conclusion that language is the sonic equivalent of the
endocrine system

<ducks>

Rik, knee deep