June 10, 2009
“king’s key” - i’d like to paint this one day in color, on a larger scale  the problem as i see it begins with the (mis)translation of aristotle, which is essentially a misunderstanding of humanity. modernity will tell you that according to aristotle humanity = rational animal, i.e. it is humanity’s reason that distinguishes it from the other members of the animal kingdom. but if this is what aristotle said then he was wrong. it is not humanity’s capacity to reason that sets it apart from the other life-forms of earth, it is humanity’s capacity to value. “man is the esteemer” (friend N.) lets illustrate - reason exists in other animals. consider a wolf pack hunting a caribou herd. the wolf pack’s goal is to isolate a young, old, weak or otherwise vulnerable member from the herd. this is simply because those are the easiest members to hunt and kill, it is the most reasonable path to food. the wolf pack has reasoned out the most efficient way to hunt. but what the wolves never ask themselves, is if it is right or wrong to hunt the weakest members of the herd, the wolf pack simply abides by the laws of evolutionary, procreative reason. the wolves never raise questions of rightness, wrongness, ethics or values - only humanity asks such questions so how was aristotle mis-translated? because his supposed definition rests on reading logos as rationality, but as Heidegger has shown us, it can also mean ability for discourse. i think aristotle knew more than we give him credit for, he saw how fundamental language was. but i’m not sure he saw why it is so fundamental. because language is the medium through which value is expressed. thus we could say that humanity has developed values only to the extent that it has developed language. a sufficient philosophical understanding of the link between language and value is still absent, this is the next task…

“king’s key” - i’d like to paint this one day in color, on a larger scale 

the problem as i see it begins with the (mis)translation of aristotle, which is essentially a misunderstanding of humanity. modernity will tell you that according to aristotle humanity = rational animal, i.e. it is humanity’s reason that distinguishes it from the other members of the animal kingdom. but if this is what aristotle said then he was wrong. it is not humanity’s capacity to reason that sets it apart from the other life-forms of earth, it is humanity’s capacity to value. “man is the esteemer” (friend N.)

lets illustrate - reason exists in other animals. consider a wolf pack hunting a caribou herd. the wolf pack’s goal is to isolate a young, old, weak or otherwise vulnerable member from the herd. this is simply because those are the easiest members to hunt and kill, it is the most reasonable path to food. the wolf pack has reasoned out the most efficient way to hunt. but what the wolves never ask themselves, is if it is right or wrong to hunt the weakest members of the herd, the wolf pack simply abides by the laws of evolutionary, procreative reason. the wolves never raise questions of rightness, wrongness, ethics or values - only humanity asks such questions

so how was aristotle mis-translated? because his supposed definition rests on reading logos as rationality, but as Heidegger has shown us, it can also mean ability for discourse. i think aristotle knew more than we give him credit for, he saw how fundamental language was. but i’m not sure he saw why it is so fundamental. because language is the medium through which value is expressed. thus we could say that humanity has developed values only to the extent that it has developed language.

a sufficient philosophical understanding of the link between language and value is still absent, this is the next task…

Comments (View)
blog comments powered by Disqus