if a lion could speak, we couldn't understand it

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here, but if a lion could speak, it would never be inclined to say anything as it does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and it would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here, but if a lion could speak, it would never be inclined to say anything as it does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and it would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

To START with anyway,
let's take cognizance of the fact that, like ALL mammals,
lions can be only male or female; hence the neuter gender pronoun
is the only one that is ridiculous. That is the pronoun that we know is rong.





David

I'm sorry... What?

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here, but if a lion could speak, it would never be inclined to say anything as it does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and it would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

To START with anyway,
let's take cognizance of the fact that, like ALL mammals,
lions can be only male or female; hence the neuter gender pronoun
is the only one that is ridiculous. That is the pronoun that we know is rong.





David

I'm sorry... What?

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here, but if a lion could speak, a lion would never be inclined to say anything as a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and a lion would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

Since language is shaped by culture, and a lion's culture is totally alien to us, we wouldn't be able to understand its language, in much the same way that we can't imagine what it would be like to be a bat

Let's take the example of Sawney Bean, regardless of whether or not, historically, there was a Sawney Bean, we have a choice:
1) we are part of his culture and could understand his language
2) we are irreconcilably separate from his culture but could understand his language
3) something else.
What's your position?

my guess is that (1) is the best option, with the proviso that no one from the 15th or 16th century could, strictly speaking, be a part of our current culture. Nevertheless, speaking to a human from 1500 would still be easier than speaking to a lion from the present.

Very well. I'll submit my edited reply here:

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here,
but if a lion could speak, a lion would never be inclined to say anything as a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and a lion would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

thack45 wrote:

Very well. I'll submit my edited reply here:

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here,
but if a lion could speak, a lion would never be inclined to say anything as a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and a lion would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

Is there evidence that lions r incapable of emotion ??
That seems unlikely.

I dispute the premise that:
" . . . a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion. . .".





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

thack45 wrote:

Very well. I'll submit my edited reply here:

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here,
but if a lion could speak, a lion would never be inclined to say anything as a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and a lion would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

Is there evidence that lions r incapable of emotion ??
That seems unlikely.

I dispute the premise that:
" . . . a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion. . .".





David

To be clear, I don't mean for this to be anything more that a light-hearted conversation (my last post reads rather a-holeish). It is also a little ridiculous (and off topic), but what are gonna do?

I don't know if there is evidence for or against lions having emotion but I don't see any indication. What is an example?

thack45 wrote:

I don't know if there is evidence for or against lions having emotion but I don't see any indication. What is an example?

I once stood in front of a lion cage and one of the lions began to roar at me, and make as to leap at me. I'll tell you, that lion clearly was not friendly.

kennethamy wrote:

thack45 wrote:

I don't know if there is evidence for or against lions having emotion but I don't see any indication. What is an example?

I once stood in front of a lion cage and one of the lions began to roar at me, and make as to leap at me. I'll tell you, that lion clearly was not friendly.

All right. Good point. But what if that lion could speak? What would be necessary for him to be compelled to do so?

Maybe it isn't emotion - or cognitive emotion(?) - at all. But that lion would have to be aware of another's awarness in order to be inclined to speak. Right?

thack45 wrote:

Very well. I'll submit my edited reply here:

thack45 wrote:

I'm sure Wittgenstein had some higher philisophical point here,
but if a lion could speak, a lion would never be inclined to say anything as a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion, and a lion would never seek to exploit the emotion of others as that is what speech does.

Is there evidence that lions r incapable of emotion ??
That seems unlikely.

I dispute the premise that:
" . . . a lion does not seem to possess the capacity of emotion. . .".





David

To be clear, I don't mean for this to be anything more that a light-hearted conversation (my last post reads rather a-holeish). It is also a little ridiculous (and off topic), but what are gonna do?

I don't know if there is evidence for or against lions having emotion but I don't see any indication.



What is an example?

jeeprs wrote:

welll if you can handle some input from someone not at all well read in Wittgenstein, what I would say he is commenting on is the 'human' nature of our reality. You might assume that the world is just given, just is as it is, but in fact, it is as it is to us with the particular types of senses we have, and the types of intentions we have towards it. A lion represents such a wholly different type of consciousness-of-the-world that if.....and so on.

As I say, that is probably not the answer of someone well read in Wittgenstein, but it is my intepretation of what the statement means.

The basic needs of lions r the same as ours:
water, food n air, etc. If we knew what thay were saying,
presumably their comments woud relate thereto.

Additionally, their plans must relate to co-ordinating hunting tactics
and social commentaries among themselves.





David

thanks to all for the fascinating input

I've never got to grips with Wittgenstein, but he does know how to get a debate going

it is fascinating that despite being surrounded by humans for hundreds of years now that apes,
be they in zoos or safari parks or wherever, have shown no progress in picking up our language AFAIK

although i believe under 'laboratory conditions', some types of communication have emerged
with some chimpanzees

it seems to defy common sense that we could never understand a talking lion,
but 'common sense' is far from perfect in its understanding of the world.