Human Exceptionalism
L:
A funny thing, though I'm not saying this applies to her at all, is that often people who like to think of human beings as a part of nature, or who should be a part of nature, are also people who don't like to think of human beings as simply one species of animal among many.
Me:
Just on your first paragraph, if I’ve unpacked it right, it’s that often people who like to think we’re part of nature also don’t like to think that we’re just one species among others. I can quite readily see those paradoxical attitudes. It struck me while I was unbundling what you wrote that our more greatly evolved consciousness and even more our self consciousness almost necessarily, almost by definition—and maybe we can in principle dispense with the “almost”—set us apart in a special way among all species. In this sense, we’re the America of species, exceptional. Yet, we easily can think that and also think we’re part of nature.
L:
On that first paragraph -- sure the human species is "exceptional", but so are giraffes or ants. Giraffes have exceptionally long necks, ants have chemical communication systems, we have sound-based communication systems -- that's it, as far as I can see, "Smart"? -- bah, humbug. It's not to say that sound-based communication hasn't had a big impact, but it is to say, first, be careful of a long-standing hubris that falsely lifts us out of nature, as though poised between beast and angel, and second, understand that it's speech, and the "culture" that follows from that peculiar trick, that distinguishes human beings, not the "big brain" that is simply what's needed for speech.
Sorry for the semi-rant -- just that I think the "oh sure we're part of nature, but we're better than nature" attitude is both manifestly self-contradictory and misguided.
Me:
Disagree about our species exceptionalism.
For one thing, that we’re dominant makes us so. But as I noted our dominance can be couched in our understanding that we’re part of what we dominate, all species in context greater than any 1 of us.
Not good or bad as such, just superior.
All animals are unique as species and within species I’d imagine each, say, ant is in its ultimate infrastructure unique. So that’s not a good argument against our exceptionalism. Taken to an extreme, it beggars relative judgment. For example, if we have different breeds of dogs and one breed simply does dog things better than other breeds, then we’d not hesitate to say, I wouldn’t think, it’s an exceptional breed.
After all, what does exceptional mean but outstanding, as in standing out. And for species, the test is dominance, I’d argue.
L:
Exceptional doesn't mean "outstanding" in my understanding, whether in species or nations (see "American exceptionalism")-- it just means not typical, as in an exception to a rule. But if, as you say, each species is unique, then every species is an exception in its unique way. As for dominance, I'm just dubious -- the ant biome apparently outweighs the human by many orders of magnitude, and even our gut bacteria might have a better claim on dominance, but I don't much mind it either way. The main point is just not to let it go to our head and lead us to think that we're not just another animal species or, the same thing, to think that we're above nature.
Me:
Not to quibble but:
much greater than usual, especially in skill, intelligence, quality, etc.:
an exceptional student
exceptional powers of concentration
The company has shown exceptional growth over the past two years.
Synonyms
especial formal
special (NOT USUAL)
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
good or important because of unusual qualities
• specialAre you doing anything special for your birthday?
• exceptionalTheir standard of acting was very high but there was one exceptional performance.
• outstandingHe accepted an award for outstanding achievement in baseball.
• extraordinaryHer capacity to remember things is extraordinary.
• deluxeThe salesman tried to sell us the deluxe model.
and
out·stand·ing
/ˌoutˈstandiNG/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1. 1.
exceptionally good."the team's outstanding performance.
I think on all this exceptional means more than just not typical; it includes both unusually good and outstanding as inclining to superiority. We wouldn’t say, “X who always runs last is an exceptional runner,” even though always running last might at least in one sense be atypical.
I agree that we ought not let what we think we are go to our heads but I still think we’re paradoxical in our self conception when don’t let that go to our heads: we can perceive our selves as superior, as up there over species in some great chain of being and at the same time we can understand ourselves as but a part of nature, the latter not excluding the former. As my friend once said, though not precisely on point:
“What a piece of worke is a man! How Noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In forme and mouing
how expresse and admirable! In Action, how like an Angel in apprehension, how like a God!
The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?”
L:
Don't want to quible either, but you're citing one meaning which is not what I'm meaning:
ex·cep·tion·al
/ˌikˈsepSH(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1. unusual; not typical."crimes of exceptional callousness and cruelty"
Similar:
unusual
uncommon
abnormal
atypical
extraordinary
As always, though, semantic differences, unless they're the topic themselves, are wastes of time. If we use your meaning, I just think it's misapplied in this case -- to me, it now has a kind of antique humanism about it, and I think even your friend, if read in context, understood how illusory such rhapsodizing is. In general, I don't think using a word like "paradox" lets you escape simple old contradiction.
Me:
I’d thought you’d said that “exceptional” *just* means “not usual” and that you were excluding it having other meanings. In response I tried to show it has a more encompassing definition that includes how I was using it in relation to human exceptionality in the animal kingdom.
Don’t fight it man, we’re species-wise marked for greatness, ‘the ecstasy of victory, the agony of defeat,” as Roone Arledge had his CBS answers say. Hey, what other animals have pro sports, the Olymipics, quarks, professional wrestling or a guy wearing a sign walking around yelling, “Eat at Joe’s”?
The issue, though, isn’t the meaning of exceptional but whether we in all our glory and tragedy are the superior species. Use any word you like for superior, say exceptional for example, or outstanding, the precise word doesn’t matter, the underlying point does.
Speaking for my friend, if we consider our glory side, then his point about us as the manifestation of that glory is quite well taken. Why his words are not precisely on point is that he, too quickly for our purposes, simply bypasses us as just one of many, and descends immediately to our dustiness.
But even in the evil that men do from your local murder to your massive genocide, from your conflagatory wars to your potential to destroy all life on the planet our superiority is manifest as well. As I noted, the test is the potential for dominance, which is not a normative judgment.
All of this is not an anachronistic vestige of humanism. It’s a clear eyed look at who and what we are.
I’m not seeing any contradiction. And I’m not using that useful “paradox” as a rhetorical dodge to escape contradiction impaling me, as you suggest I am. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. I think you’re impaled on the apparent. There’s no logical necessity to someone thinking he’s exceptional that requires him to see himself as not part of the team. He might see himself as not a part of it but he doesn’t have to. And so you have the paradox: his understanding that compared to the rest of his team he’s outstanding, he stands out, he’s, if you will, exceptional, coupled with his understanding he’s part of a team for all his self understood exceptionality. And he can go two ways on that: he can be a team player; or he can be a sheer hot dog.
L:
" All of this is not an anachronistic vestige of humanism. It’s a clear eyed look at who and what we are."
No, sorry, I think it's kind of old-fashioned. That sort of "we're the greatest!" boosterism went out in the 19th century. It's been replaced now, of course, by "we're the worst!" of the 21st century "wokesters" ("woke" like the living dead are woke), which is even sillier -- the simple fact of the matter is that we're a species of animal that's acquired the trick of using sounds to communicate. That's a good trick, no doubt, and it's given us cities and art, and just lately some 7 billion in population, but that's only doing what a cultural animal can do, and we shouldn't let it make us giddy, or turn us into a "sheer hotdog" -- which, I'm saying, is a feature of those who insist we're above the animals.
Me:
We’re the only cultural animal in a certain understanding of culture.
We’re the only animal that can build cities out of our consciousness. And we measure other species by other species by their proximity to ours special attributes.
You can call it a trick but that’s just one way of looking at it and when it claims exclusivity, then it’s but an arbitrary way of looking at it.
We as superior is a clear eyed look because we come to this judgment about ourselves by surveying the field. If superior beings to us come to us, we’ll judge them as superior to us, that evident in their accomplishing what we cannot and in their ability if so inclined to dominate us. That likely would be a result of their greater cognition, the same measure that ups us the lower species.
Here’s another line of argument in a question for you. When you see an ant or some roach or some spider, don’t you get rid of it, benignly or malevolently as you will, and perceive it as some lower form of thing that’s but pesky to you? IOW, don’t you as you go about feel yourself abrim with your own specialness compared to the dog or cat or rabbit or something in a zoo that you might see on or off a leash? I’d think you do in the sense that I think we all do.
And if so, aren’t you arguing against your innate sense and experience of yourself, just the way people claim we have no free will when their deepest innate sense and experience of themselves tell them they’re chalk full of it?
L:
Okay, I guess it comes down to what Tyller Cowen often calls "mood affiliation", and the whole "superior", "dominant", etc. mood isn't one I'm drawn to. I get rid of creepy-crawlies when I can, but just because I don't like them -- it would seem absurd to me to compare myself to them as "lower". Nor do I feel abrim with my specialness in seeing other mammals -- you're projecting. But regardless of mood, the main thing I think is quite important is simply that the human is not some kind of being that's above or out of nature, and in that sense it's worth emphasizing our own animality.
Me:
Perhaps a happy resolution.
I agree with your last thought on what’s important.
I’ll leave the rest of it for two reasons: I’d basically be repeating myself; and let’s not poke this happy resolution and risk saddening it.
Cheers, buddy.
And a shout out from George ‘the Animal’ Steele, the British Bulldog and the Junkyard Dog, pro rasslin’ greats no longer with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment