Hobbes and Descartes both have views on how humans are different from animals. Starting on page 32 of Descartes’ Discourse we can find his argument on why we are different. He starts off with saying that we have the ability of genuine use of language. This is saying that we can actually understand that words have more than one meaning, and that we can have conversations about things. Where as to animals words are just signals. For example, apes have a sound for when snakes are coming to let the others know, and they also have one for “danger from the sky”, but they can’t talk about that snake that is coming they can only signal that is coming. Descartes’ second reason why humans are different from animals is that we have “rational flexibility”. By that he means that we have a “capacity for genuine learning” (Quote from Prof. Borman, Friday May 21st). In layman’s terms, we can actually learn things. In comparison, animals find out what things are through repetition. An example of how using these two points separate us from animals is the example of my dog. In regards to point two, where humans can learn things as opposed to animals, my dog had to be repeatedly told what “Treat” was until she understood that it meant she is going to get a treat. That leads me into point one, where humans understand language and animals don’t, that my dog can’t go over to the other dogs and talk about how wonderful her treats are, this is because “treat” is just a signal for her that she is going to get a treat.
Hobbes’ view on the difference between humans and animals has some of the same points as Descartes’. As an example, for both of them language is the big one that separates us from the animals. One of the main differences between Descartes and Hobbes is that Hobbes wants to show that humans are not social; where as for Descartes being social does not matter. Hobbes’ first point is that we as humans compete, he also says that animals compete, but for humans we are specifically after honour and dignity, which in turn leads to war. Hobbes’ second point is that the individual desires of social animals line up exactly with what is good for the group, but for us, humans, our individual desires are for power and superiority. If by chance our individual desires benefit the group in any way Hobbes would say that is purely coincidence and we are only doing that so we can become more superior to our peers. An example of this is philanthropy, the only reason why we do it is to support our individual desires and use it as a sign of power, and not just for the reason of contributing to the group. Hobbes’ third point is that we as human have reason, and that reason allows us to criticize others. At this point in the argument this point by itself does not help the argument much, but when we get to point five, we can see why Hobbes included it. Now, point four, Hobbes’ states that humans have language, and we use that language to lie and manipulate. The fifth point, where Hobbes wraps up his argument, declares that we can be offended, but animals can only be injured. Now we look back to point three, and we see that language allows us to criticize others, and with point five it is shown that we can be offended. In class it was joked that if a dog was hit he would not go and carry a grudge and make a plan to get revenge, but if a human were in that position, we probably would.
If I were to choose whose position is more adequate I would have to choose Descartes’ view on the matter. This is because I don’t agree with Hobbes on the basis that humans are just out to become more powerful, and Descartes does not even touch on power in his argument. Instead, Descartes argues that reason, learning, and language separate us, not for the reason Hobbes put forth, but as an alternative so that humans can be social.
Filed under: Rant
