The plurality of the human racePouchet, G. (Georges)
Philosophy
The plurality of the human race
Pouchet, G. (Georges)
Monogenism and polygenism
Experience would entirely deny any such assertion. And this not only
with reference to the superior animals, for this faculty appears to be
extended even to the invertebrata. The well-known experiments of P.
Huber seem to have proved in the most decisive manner that ants,[87]
like bees, are able to transmit certain signs or indications from one
to the other; even if the mere act of living in a republic, of joining
together in one common work, did not offer the strongest presumption
of a language peculiar to these creatures. If anyone dares to deny to
animals the spontaneous exercise of a restricted language, limited in
whatever way that may be desired, at least it cannot be denied that
many of the vertebrate animals are not capable of receiving from it
an equal education, of understanding the signification of certain
sounds, of certain signs, and of producing in their turn such as may be
understood by us, of communicating to us any of their thoughts, or any
of their appreciations.
We are not speaking here of animals who can reproduce certain sounds
belonging to the vocal organs of man; that is a fact of an entirely
material character, and which has no reference to the question of
language. It is evident that the animal which articulates any word
whatsoever does not understand it a whit more than the man who imitates
the cry of an animal, and, in a general way, neither comprehends its
sense nor its signification.
Maupertuis alleges[88] that if animals were capable of understanding
we could teach them to make themselves understood by other signs in
default of a voice. A strange aberration of intellect for such a
studious and learned man. This is the man who makes an impossibility
out of an everyday occurrence; for, first of all, most animals _have_
some sort of voice, and if they had it not, there are few persons who
are ignorant of the way in which certain mute dogs make themselves
understood when they particularly desire it. What would really be
absurd would be the hope of imparting ideas to animals, matters
relating, indeed, to a higher order, since we see that even all _men_
are not capable of grasping them. Man has been able to train animals,
and to train implies precisely the idea of communicating a thought
from man to an animal, and from the animal to man. “Jump,” says the
shepherd to his dog, and the dog knows that this vocal articulation
orders him to make a given muscular effort. The man has _spoken_ to the
dog. During the night some one opens the gate of the farm-yard, and the
watch-dog barks; he thus _tells_ his master that something unusual is
happening.[89]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account