Frank S. Robinson takes issue with Julian Jaynes’ argument about the self.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/How_Old_is_the_Self
How Old is the Self?
Re: How Old is the Self?
I don't have access to the Robinson article, but from what I know Jaynes I think he is confusing a few things. What Jaynes seems to be arguing for is mental representations in terms of Gods and the abilities human developed when faced with practical problems getting food and shelter.Philosophy Now wrote:Frank S. Robinson takes issue with Julian Jaynes’ argument about the self.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/How_Old_is_the_Self
I think Jaynes really needs to say that what is "missing" from human consciousness in the early stages was higher level concepts. I don't think they were actually missing they just weren't developed very well. If you asked a cave man what is the similarity between a deer and a rabbit he would probably tell you they both can run fast. If you asked a person who knows something of science he/she would probably tell you they are both mammals. I am not sure where I heard this analogy but I think it fits in well here.
-
benjamindavidsteele
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:48 pm
Re: How Old is the Self?
I thought the conclusion lacked depth.
"Anyone who studies deeply the earliest civilizations must come to realize that far more unites us with them than differentiates us. These ancestors of ours, only a few hundred generations past, who first figured out how to plant and harvest crops, domesticate animals, build villages and then cities, create writing and literature and music and art, invent government and law, launch great architecture, exploration, trade and conquest, and lay the foundations of science and mathematics, could not possibly have done all this with minds that functioned in the primitive manner Jaynes postulates. His theory belittles those people and their stupendous achievements. All our subsequent accomplishments build upon theirs; they themselves did not have the benefit of following trailblazers – they had to build from scratch. It’s inconceivable that “they knew not what they did.” One might even say preposterous."
Jaynes never claimed ancient people didn't share a common human nature with us. His argument is simply that there minds functioned differently. Certainly, he wasn't making an argument about us moderns being superior in all ways and that the ancients were a bunch of primitive losers. They were able to think and plan in ways that led to practical and sometimes great results. It's just that the voices they heard doing the thinking and planning may have been experienced quite differently. It seems a major assumption to make, maybe even preposterous, that complex intelligent thought is not possible without modern individual self-consciousness with a fully internalized voice.
"Anyone who studies deeply the earliest civilizations must come to realize that far more unites us with them than differentiates us. These ancestors of ours, only a few hundred generations past, who first figured out how to plant and harvest crops, domesticate animals, build villages and then cities, create writing and literature and music and art, invent government and law, launch great architecture, exploration, trade and conquest, and lay the foundations of science and mathematics, could not possibly have done all this with minds that functioned in the primitive manner Jaynes postulates. His theory belittles those people and their stupendous achievements. All our subsequent accomplishments build upon theirs; they themselves did not have the benefit of following trailblazers – they had to build from scratch. It’s inconceivable that “they knew not what they did.” One might even say preposterous."
Jaynes never claimed ancient people didn't share a common human nature with us. His argument is simply that there minds functioned differently. Certainly, he wasn't making an argument about us moderns being superior in all ways and that the ancients were a bunch of primitive losers. They were able to think and plan in ways that led to practical and sometimes great results. It's just that the voices they heard doing the thinking and planning may have been experienced quite differently. It seems a major assumption to make, maybe even preposterous, that complex intelligent thought is not possible without modern individual self-consciousness with a fully internalized voice.
-
benjamindavidsteele
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:48 pm
Re: How Old is the Self?
Gingko - You bring up a good angle:
"I think Jaynes really needs to say that what is "missing" from human consciousness in the early stages was higher level concepts. I don't think they were actually missing they just weren't developed very well. If you asked a cave man what is the similarity between a deer and a rabbit he would probably tell you they both can run fast. If you asked a person who knows something of science he/she would probably tell you they are both mammals. I am not sure where I heard this analogy but I think it fits in well here."
I've been reading some more recent writings and theorizing about Jaynes' ideas. What you are talking about is abstract thinking. This is discussed quite a bit in the secondary literature. It was also discussed by Jaynes himself in the book he presented his view of the breakdown of the bicameral mind.
What you mentioned isn't just an analogy. This directly relates to how we measure intelligence.
Have you heard of the Flynn effect? The average IQ has been steadily going up every generation since tests were first given. Because of this, it has become standard practice to norm the IQ tests to each generation. If IQs weren't normed, the average person from earlier last century would measure as functionally retarded by present IQ standards. Let that sink in. The generations of the past that built our great country were mostly low intelligence to an extreme degree, at least according to how we test intelligence.
Flynn theorized this had to do with the increase in abstract thinking. Until fairly recently, most people were farmers and did work that required concrete thinking. It wasn't until mass urbanization, industrialization, and universal public education that abstract thinking became a common ability. It has become so common that we now take it for granted. But a century ago it was a rare ability limited mostly to an intellectual elite.
That is a change that happened over just a century. Imagine how much change happens over a few millennia. We look on the past through the lens of our present society. We forget how unusual are present conditions that have altered cognitive development.
What happened in the breakdown of the bicameral mind and the rise of the Axial Age was the early development of abstract thinking. It wasn't yet developed to the extent we presently know of it with science and such, but the basic ability began showing itself. It was initially limited to the elite for most of history following. Even so, enough people were changed that it shifted the entirety of society and those changes filtered down into the masses.
The author of this article takes Jaynes theory as a criticism of the worth of ancient people. I would contest his conclusion. A lack of or limitation to abstract thinking ability doesn't mean a person is less worthy. If you are a person living by manual labor (hunting, gathering, herding, farming, etc), as most people have for most of human existence, you have little use for abstract thinking.
It isn't an attack on our shared human nature that it took a few millennia for abstract thinking to fully take hold. Changes at that level are extreme. They cut to the heart of what it means to be human. Is it surprising that people resist these changes. This past century with the rise to dominance of abstract thought for the first time in history has also brought with it massive social turmoil, not to mention mass violence. The wars of the 20th century were wars of ideology, which is to say wars of abstractions.
We are still coming to terms with the changes that began millennia ago.
"I think Jaynes really needs to say that what is "missing" from human consciousness in the early stages was higher level concepts. I don't think they were actually missing they just weren't developed very well. If you asked a cave man what is the similarity between a deer and a rabbit he would probably tell you they both can run fast. If you asked a person who knows something of science he/she would probably tell you they are both mammals. I am not sure where I heard this analogy but I think it fits in well here."
I've been reading some more recent writings and theorizing about Jaynes' ideas. What you are talking about is abstract thinking. This is discussed quite a bit in the secondary literature. It was also discussed by Jaynes himself in the book he presented his view of the breakdown of the bicameral mind.
What you mentioned isn't just an analogy. This directly relates to how we measure intelligence.
Have you heard of the Flynn effect? The average IQ has been steadily going up every generation since tests were first given. Because of this, it has become standard practice to norm the IQ tests to each generation. If IQs weren't normed, the average person from earlier last century would measure as functionally retarded by present IQ standards. Let that sink in. The generations of the past that built our great country were mostly low intelligence to an extreme degree, at least according to how we test intelligence.
Flynn theorized this had to do with the increase in abstract thinking. Until fairly recently, most people were farmers and did work that required concrete thinking. It wasn't until mass urbanization, industrialization, and universal public education that abstract thinking became a common ability. It has become so common that we now take it for granted. But a century ago it was a rare ability limited mostly to an intellectual elite.
That is a change that happened over just a century. Imagine how much change happens over a few millennia. We look on the past through the lens of our present society. We forget how unusual are present conditions that have altered cognitive development.
What happened in the breakdown of the bicameral mind and the rise of the Axial Age was the early development of abstract thinking. It wasn't yet developed to the extent we presently know of it with science and such, but the basic ability began showing itself. It was initially limited to the elite for most of history following. Even so, enough people were changed that it shifted the entirety of society and those changes filtered down into the masses.
The author of this article takes Jaynes theory as a criticism of the worth of ancient people. I would contest his conclusion. A lack of or limitation to abstract thinking ability doesn't mean a person is less worthy. If you are a person living by manual labor (hunting, gathering, herding, farming, etc), as most people have for most of human existence, you have little use for abstract thinking.
It isn't an attack on our shared human nature that it took a few millennia for abstract thinking to fully take hold. Changes at that level are extreme. They cut to the heart of what it means to be human. Is it surprising that people resist these changes. This past century with the rise to dominance of abstract thought for the first time in history has also brought with it massive social turmoil, not to mention mass violence. The wars of the 20th century were wars of ideology, which is to say wars of abstractions.
We are still coming to terms with the changes that began millennia ago.
-
Lev Muishkin
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm
Re: How Old is the Self?
The self is always becoming, changing, and different with each moment.
The self as it is, can only exist in the present. Yesterday you were somewhat different. And when a child you were not the person you now know.
It's a little like seeing a painter work on his painting and asking him how old it is when it remains unfinished.
When we ask of a person now dead, how old, we can measure the age, not from the moment of birth, but from the moment of death.
The self as it is, can only exist in the present. Yesterday you were somewhat different. And when a child you were not the person you now know.
It's a little like seeing a painter work on his painting and asking him how old it is when it remains unfinished.
When we ask of a person now dead, how old, we can measure the age, not from the moment of birth, but from the moment of death.