Philosophy 101 Unit 1

I have always been fascinated by animal behavior. I simply see so many similarities between humans and animals purely in behavior. After all, how can I really know what animals are thinking? Or for the sake of the argument, if they are? I can only rely on their behavior and/or communication of their thoughts via a language that I can understand (sign language in some cases). Strictly speaking, and if you’ve read any of The Naked Ape you know what I mean, to understand animal behavior, we just need to see how it correlates with human behavior (and vice versa). Lately, in class and in the posts online, many arguments have been brought up that animals are simply complex programmed machines without thoughts. Many examples can be argued like that of mourning elephants or signing chimpanzees, but in the end, there is no way to prove that animals are indeed equivalent in terms of their capacity to think and understand to that of humans.

Aristotle brings up an interesting point in the section about wisdom. He insists that intelligence and political science must be distinguished from wisdom. Furthermore, he states, “….the content of wisdom is always the same, but the content of intelligence is not. For the agent they would call intelligent is the one who studies well each question about his own [good], and he is the one whom they would entrust such questions. Hence intelligence is also ascribed to some of the beasts, the ones that are evidently capable of forethought about their own life.” If you were lucky enough to see the video about the bower birds, you would probably agree with me that these birds are very complex and exhibit signs of forethought. Do they study questions about their own lives? How can we possibly know? Their whole lives are invested in procreation and determining (individually) what would please and summon a potential mate. Their nests (or whatever it’s called) are constantly being arranged and tidied up. Perhaps after one potential suitor flies away, these birds reassess and see what they could do that will work for the next female that swoops by. Aristotle also claims that all that animals are capable of is intelligence, but not wisdom. This is a claim that I personally struggle with. Let’s go back to the example of a chimpanzee who has learned sign language so that he can communicate with us. Side note—I believe it was in our discussion about Descartes that we mentioned that the only way of knowing/recognizing that another human has the ability to think and therefore exists is due to language. The assumption is that animals don’t have language, but rather just vocalize meaningless sounds (or sounds that have very concrete meanings related to emotions and not thought). Well if a chimpanzee is able to communicate his thoughts/wants/desires/feelings to a human, does that not mean that this animal is capable of thought (demonstrated through the language), but also more than just intelligent? Wisdom is a combination of craft, scientific knowledge, and understanding. Explain this to me, a specific chimpanzee (one of the famous ones) wanted to tell his care taker that he wanted “fruit juice,” since he didn’t know the sign for it, he signed “fruit” “water.” Does that not demonstrate wisdom (composed of those three elements)?

Wisdom, as Aristotle discusses it, suggests broad knowledge about the greater scope of the world, not just one craft or something you gain from experience. Further in his article he states, “By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others.” Elephants are capable of memory. In my opinion, this is not something that can be taught. When they come across the bones of a deceased relative, they mourn. Then they exhibit a sort of ritual dance. This behavior in my opinion is considered a form of overarching knowledge/wisdom/understanding of the circumstances.

Combined with Plato, and Socrates (whom was Plato’s teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. “He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.” In his text on “Technē & Epistēmē” he discusses the five states in which the human soul grasps truth in its “affirmations or denials”. The five stages consist of the following: Scientific knowledge, craft-knowledge, intelligence, understanding, and wisdom. The scientific knowledge is knowledge that is “known by necessity”. This intelligence that is known by necessity would resemble the building blocks or basic starting points of much of our scientific knowledge. This particular type of knowledge is teachable and demonstrable like any type of science and mathematics that are learned in a classroom or laboratory through teaching or experimentation. This type of knowledge uses logic, but cannot prove logic. Rather scientific knowledge uses logic to reach other conclusions. Craft-knowledge is a category of knowledge that results in a type of production taking place. A craft is a “state involving true reason concerned with production.” Next there is intelligence. This is a hard virtue of thought as it is not meant in the everyday way we use the term intelligent. A person whom is intelligent would be someone who is able to study what is good for themselves and for human beings. Understanding (the next virtue of thought) is deeply connected with the previous three, as none of the others would be in existence without understanding. It is the necessary base for which all the previous virtues of thought require. Lastly there is wisdom. Wisdom is described by excellence is a craft. Aristotle defines wisdom as “understanding plus scientific knowledge”.

Artificial intelligence is the intelligence of complex machines combined with the branch of computer science which aims to create an artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence can be defined as “the study and design of intelligent agents,” whereby intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success. As we discussed in class, animals as explained by Descartes, are only complex machines with a sort of artificial intelligence as they do not have the thoughts or a mind to think with. This is in effect, saying that artificial intelligence is present in animals. Animals are thrown into Descartes classification of doubt. He doubts they exist as they do not meet this basic requirement of having thoughts. I myself am strongly against such a claim. Animals are more than a type of artificial intelligence. Animals have conscious thoughts, we as humans are simply unable to understand and comprehend them. Humans voice their thoughts through language and behavior as animals do too. Animals “converse” to one another with different sounds and actions that humans cannot decipher. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent, usually even said to be the most intelligent animals second only to humans. “Some research shows that dolphins do have high cognitive capability meaning that they are able to recognize the self”. I believe that Descartes is entirely incorrect in basing existence solely on the fact that in order for a thing to exist it must have a mind with thoughts.

An interesting article about dolphins and other animals and their cognitive abilities can be found at the link: Cetacean Intelligence

This is an open thread to share your thoughts on this week’s reading and lectures. You must leave a comment in this thread by Tuesday’s class to receive participation credit for this week. The following questions are merely prompts to stimulate your mind, but feel free to raise and answer any other on-topic question. You can comment on any topic raised in class this week. There is no word limit on your comment, but it must demonstrate some minor effort on your part to think critically about the topics raised in class. You may also respond to another student’s comments in this thread, or questions raised in lecture. Any substantive post beyond the first will count towards your reply requirements.

• Are all beliefs merely opinion? What is the value of an opinion, and how do we distinguish those from genuine knowledge?
• Why is persuasion and rhetoric a bad thing on Plato’s and Socrates’ view? Do you agree or disagree?
• Protagoras said “Man is the measure of all things.” Does that apply to mathematical and geometric truths as well? Does 1+1=2 simply because we say so, or does it reveal a deeper truth about the world?
• Is the unexamined life worth living? Why or why not?
• What is the area of a circle? How do you know for sure?
• Should we trust our reason and intellect over our senses? How deep does the distinction between the visible realm and the intelligible realm go?
• Can someone be taught an ‘eternal truth’, in Plato’s sense?