The Primitive State Of Man Vs The — страница 3

  • Просмотров 244
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 18

had to have taken centuries before man was able to reproduce the fire sent from the sky, never mind know the consequences and applications it could bring. And even if one of them figured it out, his technique died along with him. (Rousseau, 47) The problem of language then comes into question in that for modern man to evolve, or devolve (ultimately change into something else) into the social creature he is today he must have most certainly developed language out of a necessity to communicate with one another. A prerequisite of being social one would argue is that communication must take place. Rousseau explains that it language had to have been a result of primitive man coming together in a social manner. Using hand gestures and grunts man was able to create a means to show what

the other was talking about. However, these grunts and hand gestures could only represent present objects and things that were in their possession. However, this type of communication was something that required attention rather than stimulate it and so men began to replace gestures with verbalization. The substitution of hand gestures to voice articulation could only come about by consent of two or more people and in a very difficult manner. To say that primitive man who was rationally inept was able to come up with a motive to form this consent without the use of language seems rather impossible. Rousseau points out that in order for this to take place it appears to be necessary in order to establish speech, speech was actually needed. (Rousseau, 50) Primitive man, it could be

inferred, perhaps had as their first words an expression that had a much broader definition than the words modern man finds in languages that are already formed. They did not have the breakup of their language as we do with ours in that they knew nothing of verbs and nouns but instead could have given each word a meaning we would have to say in a complete sentence. At first each object individually received it s own name without regard to a division of a kingdom or even a species. Every oak tree was given a different name for when defining two things, even though they may have similar qualities, it is easier at first to note the differences. What things have in common come later as they are usually harder to depict. Rousseau goes on to explain the utter hardships these primitive

men must have had in order to take their language further. He speaks of ideas and forms and how every idea is purely intellectual. A monkey assuredly is unable to distinguish one archetype of a nut, to the archetype of another nut when the nut belongs to the very same species. He explains that the least involvement of the imagination, the very action of doing just that, makes the idea particular. He gives us the example of drawing a general tree and how, in spite of our own biasness, drawing what one sees in every tree would ultimately lead to a drawing that looks anything but a tree. Abstract things are perceived equally or envisioned only through the means of language. Rousseau concludes these thoughts on language by explaining that primitive man could never have imagined or

even understood words like being, mind, figure, and movement when we as modern man who has vocalized communication and has been using such terminology for centuries do not fully understand them ourselves. These words could never be found in the state of primitive man for they are purely metaphysical. (Rousseau, 51) Rousseau believes that in order for this gap, that is taking gestures to vocalizations, and then those primitive vocalizations to form the complex language of today a trait of primitive man must have been innately present. Much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, Rousseau asks was an already formed society needed in order to invent language, or, was an already invented language needed for the establishment of a society? (Rousseau, 51) Nature

clearly offered anything but a paved way for man to come together through mutual needs, did not offer any help in the establishment of speech, and did not, could not in her very essence prepare primitive man to become habituated to the social structure we know today. One can also note that it s almost ignorant to think man would have greater need for another man more so than any other beast of its time. Even if this need were present, how would one man induce motive in the other to help? Modern man continually speaks of how wretched his ancestors were, ironically, as we have already discussed the free nature and being, not to mention physical health these men possessed. Perhaps what scares modern man most about primitive man was the fact that they were at the mercy of nature and