A compreensão de antropos como animal linguageiro não é gratuita. Mas, é importante lembrar, o lógos era, simultaneamente, a razão (capacidade de raciocínio), a razão (motivação, motivo para algo ocorrer tal qual ocorreu), mas também o nome da(s) língua(s) humana(s). Assim, resta o achatamento final: o som de Homo é o lógos. Não há nada de diferente do ruído animal aí, é tal qual o gorjear, o coaxar, o relinchar, etc. Mesmo assim, marca-se uma diferença inominável, inenarrável.
Hermetology #9
The understanding of anthropos as a linguistic animal is not gratuitous. But, it is important to remember, lógos was simultaneously the reason (ability to reason), the reason (motivation, reason for something to occur as it did), but also the name of the human language(s). Thus, the final squaring remains: the sound of Homo is the lógos. There is nothing different from the animal noise here, it is just like the twittering, croaking, whinnying, etc. Even so, there is an unnameable, indescribable difference.
I'll now sound like Socrates, questioning the most self-evident things, but I wonder whether we can truly say that there is an unnamable, indescribable difference between animal and human noise. I think that, to do that, we would need to have access to animal thought (or, worse, consciousness), and this is very thin ice. After all, when we have cases of animals who not only use e.g. sign language to communicate, but also display compositional capabilities (e.g. combining "bottle" and "fire" to refer to a lighter), this should give us pause.
ResponderExcluir