On Being Human, Language and Civilisation

Image credit

In this thread, I have written a short piece about one of my favourite pieces of anthropology:

John F. Hultquist and RAH,  

I agree with you guys. To me, language is among the most fascinating leads left by mankind from which to judge where our efforts at being civilised have been taking us. 

I take my cue from Sir Karl Popper who identifies the functions specific to human language (as opposed to the functions of the language of [other] animals) as what makes humans humans. 

As opposed to animals, we are able to make elaborate descriptions (descriptive function of language). If you can describe things, you can describe descriptions and their difference, which brings you to the next specifically human function of language (lacking in animals):  

The argumentative function; we can argue about the quality and truthfulness of a description, and develop refined and powerful methods of ascertaining truth/plausibility. This gives rise to another function specific to human language: the critical function; we can use our language to understand and criticise one another's thoughts.  

At this point man has arrived at objectivity — he can turn his inner reasoning into an object for assessment by other humans (note objectivity of which man is capable is not to be confused with absolute and final truth but with findings/propositions/hypotheses subjected to the most rigorous testing).  

At this advanced point man has effectively developed a hyper-intelligence that connects the brains and thinking of billions of human beings. This makes us a lot more kowledgeable and reflected than any other species.