Philosophy Now Forum

The Monkey That Denies It’s a Monkey: Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Scientists Grunts, Squeaks, and Chest-Beating

Monkey (Homo-sapiens) is not a “Truth” maker but a “Tool” maker for its utility –for its survival
Monkey (Homo-sapiens) is a “social construct” formed from its biology and the environment/society its brought up in Its behaviour is a system of signalling to shows its status thru symbols like titles awards clothes cars money wealth etc
Colin Leslie Dean’s profound critiques of mathematics, academia, and human cognition invite us to reconsider the nature of human knowledge and behavior through an anthropological and sociobiological lens. Central to Dean’s worldview is the recognition that despite our claims to rationality, intellectual achievement, and pursuit of absolute truths, Homo sapiens remain essentially biological monkeys, constrained by evolutionary drives and embedded in social constructs.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ies-It.pdf
or

scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/9043473 ... -Sociology

We're not monkeys, we're apes << both go back to a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor ape >>

Monkeys have tails (among other differences). It drives me nuts when people (i.e. American idiots) call chimpanzees 'monkeys'.

Thank you, Jane Goodall. We'll all make a note of that.

''I'm not a zoologist but I know what a monkey is''.

--Accelafine

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 2:49 am We're not monkeys, we're apes << both go back to a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor ape >>

As indicated by the thread title associating monkeys with folks, the context, meaning, use and purpose of monkey is probably derision, rather than a tedious taxonomy.

Monkeys are popular for applying derision. They're kinda silly, kinda resemble people. Mixing monkeys with philosophers and the rest of knowledge icons, as in the thread title, suggests derision.

“Well, I’ll be an ape’s aunt,” lacks the stickum to deride the theory of evolution (an icon of knowledge).

“Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle,” works for being alliteratively unoffensive to feminine pulchritude, as beauty was called when monkey’s uncle was a popular mockery of the theory of evolution (Ref: Scopes Monkey Trial).

For example, the saying of “hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil,” uses monkeys as a visual illustration in place of people, which is less offensive to anyone who might display the physical characteristics of any human resembling the illustration of willful ignorance.

Monkey’s uncle is superior to Ape’s aunt in this situation because illustrating ignorance with creatures similar but more powerful than humans sends a mixed message that ignorance is power, rather than sending a message of humans being willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is also more monkey rep than silverback rep.

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 10:23 pm ''I'm not a zoologist but I know what a monkey is''.

--Accelafine

Musing … if a woman does not know what a woman is, does a monkey know what a monkey is?

Blackburn: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”

Jackson: “Can I provide a definition?”

Blackburn: “Mhmm, yeah.”

Jackson: “No, I can’t.”

Blackburn: “You can’t?”

Jackson: “Not in this context--I’m not a biologist.”

- Ketanji Brown Jackson (woman)

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 10:13 am Monkeys have tails (among other differences). It drives me nuts when people (i.e. American idiots) call chimpanzees 'monkeys'.

A monkey's tale of being called a chimp would get no sympathy, because as we know, chimps are smarter than monkeys.