Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication (information system).
Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence between language and thinking.
1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence between language and culture.
Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals: (1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2) they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking; (1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical human tool for culture.
If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future, thus you have more leisure, more luxury, and this gives you and your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual / intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.
But nevertheless: the human nature is not only the human language but the whole human culture; and merely the rest of about 2% is a pure natural aspect of the human nature (these 2% are not really few - as we know, especially from genetics).
You could also say that language is one way we express our nature, but we do think in terms of language (although I would argue that perhaps the sciences are able to transcend this), and our ability to learn language is innate (you could put an infant in just about any environment, as long as the infant is exposed to language, they will learn to speak and understand it). But when philosophers talk about human nature, they tend to speak of our “state of nature” (are we naturally egalitarian, are we naturally savage, are we naturally competitive, etc.)? These are features that don’t necessarily require complex language. Indeed we see these sort of traits in other animals (compare the behavior of the chimpanzee to the bonobo). In fact there was a recent experiment that suggests altruism is even common among rats.
The anarchist zoologist Peter Kropotkin long ago established the idea that animals, under conditions of resource abundance, are very cooperative and altruistic. But I think you get closer to our nature when you observe how we behave under pressure (I mean, if you give a criminal millions of dollars and they decide to retire to a tropical beach somewhere and give up their life of crime, does that mean they’re truly reformed, should we confuse their newly found wealth with good character, no … we would just say their greed has been at least temporarily satiated, but their “nature” remains greedy and narcissistic nonetheless). I think it’s instructive to observe how we panic when attacked, how we go at each others throats during tough economic times, how easy it is to inspire xenophobia and hate, etc. etc. But I still resist the temptation to say Hobbes was right, because I just think his explanation was too simplistic.
Language has an innate and a non-innate feature. The capability of language learning is an innate feature, but if the environment of the said infant is without language, then this infant will not learn any language, and if an adult has never had any language experiences, then the language learning is almost impossible for this adult. So there is a critical point of time as a border for the capability of language learning. The capability of language learning gets lost (the older a human becomes the more the capability of language learning gets lost), generally and especially, if there is no language environment, no possibility of language exercises.
That’s all true except that we’re beginning to learn that adulthood is not the handicap to learning that we once believed, which even applies to language. Ironically, a recent study indicates that adults struggle with learning a new language because they try harder than children (is that weird or what)?
But it remains true that learning a second language after puberty is more difficult than learning multiple languages as a young child (because of interference from the native language and localization of the language function to a specialized part of the brain, and it seems like the more recent science is leaning towards neural changes as the most important factor). However, there’s really no reason why a 60 year old cannot learn language just as easily as a 30 year old (in both cases, the individuals are well past full maturation of the brain), although a 60 year old has a higher probability of suffering from a disorder that debilitates cognitive function (but if both are healthy, then the only real difference in learning capacity will be IQ). The 60 year old may have less energy, but the 30 year old is hornier and more distracted (so it could wash out either way, and it really depends on the person, motivation level, etc).
The workload and the speed of a little child’s language learning are not to top after the age of that little child who learns the language for the first time.
Nope.
A dolphin cannot talk about human things as it inhabits a completely different expereince.
They say that all familial pods of Orca has unique languages, and that their brains are more keenly attuned to emotional communication than humans. With there communications systems they can perform novel and very clever hunting techniques that show a level of commincation and understanding that human are incapable of understanding.
I don’t know, if you swim along side one or splash around, then you are consciousness sharing a similar experience but in different shaped objects/bodies. If you gave it a fish it might say thank you! A feral human will try to act like it’s adoptive creature parents.
Secondly language describes objects and behaviours in the world, and a talking dolphin would share the same world.
Being around a dolphin [or dog, cat etc] with the same linguistic potential as humans would surely derive a shared language to some degree?
Human nature, how to paint a pretty picture of a naked ugly vicious destructive beast in the absence of objective purpose or meaning within the universe devoid of all caring or understanding.
Yes, humanists of every stripe, describe to us what human nature is.
Let’s hear the social propaganda angle of it as its all you have to go on.
It’s too bad he had to water down his philosophy at the time to make it more paleable for a puritan Christian zealous majority out of fear of religious persecution because then he could of written truly even more about what he thought of human nature without restrictions during the 16th century.
He had to keep everything religiously PC during that period of time towing the party line.
No, I don’t. Yes, I would include myself into that equation also.
From my point of view, it’s a savage animal species trying to extrapolate that it is somehow better than what it really is and because there is nobody else around to criticize it all levels of bullshit is articulated to paint a rose on itself when all there is weeds.
It’s like taking a plate of dog shit and then going to some sort of bullshit extrapolation as to why it is a five star meal.
Today I chose to be nice. Today you could chose to be more human, rather than a chippy little bitch harping on about ‘humans’ and pretending you are not one.
I don’t eat meat. I don’t agree with most modern values. Why should I associate and place myself into the same category of a herd that doesnt share or care to understand my values? I especially can’t stand when a human get’s “chippy” when someone insults his precious species. Your species is a galactic punching bag, a receptical, a scapegoat, a “blame all”, always will be until they change their ways.
Homosapiens are animals just more delusional, inventive, and innovative kind of animal.
How human beings treat each other, other animals, and the natural environment only shows an inherent viciousness of human nature which of course Thomas Hobbes elaborated quite well. His solution or ideal containment of human nature not so much by comparison…
When I think of human nature I think of words like viciousness, savagery, inequality, hyper -competitive, selfishness, egotistical, malicious, duplicitous, hypocritical, vanity, narcissism, myopic, insatiable-desire, power-driven, dangerous, dominating, and arrogance. I do not sugar coat human nature as a bunch of naive idealists and simpletons make the habit of doing the world over.