Sam Bostaph wrote:`
> I think this whole discussion would benefit with
> a complete absence of "anthropomorphizing." In THE
> DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES, Mortimer
> Adler pointed out quite a few decades ago that the human
> capacity for conceptual thought is not shared with other
> animals and is the distinctive mark of a human being.
> All of the outer manifestations of animal behavior do not
> constitute a basis for using words that designate human
> acts for other animal acts.
Are you saying we should rely on Adler (Adler?!) to
pronounce on such things rather than attend to the
accumulated scientific evidence? Or are you simply playing
games with the word "capacity" in order to enforce the
economist's prejudice that I "pointed out"? Are you
suggesting we should divide our vocabulary like this:
eat(h) - human eating
eat(a) - other animal eating
mate(h) - human mating
mate(a) - other animal mating
exhibit anger and attack(h) - human fighting
exhibit anger and attack(a) - animal fighting
etc.?
Surely you are not asserting that the study of animal
behavior has shed no light on human behavior? Or are you?
Aside from the science, ordinary experience proves that man
is more like chimp than a god. In contrast, homo economicus
is often presented as more of a god than a chimp. That is
the worse category error.
Cheers,
Alan Isaac