“You might want to ask why we should think of minds extending into bodies and artefacts, rather than merely interacting with them. Does it make any difference? One answer is that, in the cases described, brain, body and world are not acting as separate interacting systems, but as a coupled system, tightly meshed by complex feedback relations, and that we need to look at the whole in order to understand how the process unfolds.”
“Language is a particularly powerful means of extension and enhancement, serving, in Clark’s phrase, as scaffolding that allows the biological brain to achieve things it could not do on its own. Linguistic symbols provide new focuses of attention, enabling us to track features of the world we would otherwise have missed, and structured sentences highlight logical and semantic relations, allowing us to develop new, more abstract reasoning procedures.”
SOURCE: Frankish, Keith. “The Mind Isn’t Locked in the Brain but Extends Far Beyond It.” Aeon.
“Human rights advocacy is a critique of power, not a directive for exercising it; humility is not only a necessary character trait but also an ideal. I now believe that a fully emancipatory human rights practice must be based on an agenda set by the affected people. This requires challenging the iniquitous structures of power that too often stand in the way of emancipation or co-opt narratives of human rights for their own ends.”
SOURCE: Waal, Alex de. “Writing Human Rights and Getting It Wrong.” Boston Review.
“What we are searching for, they held, is a ‘rooted’ or worthwhile existence. The solution, they urged, was to achieve rootedness, or ‘neltiliztli.’ The world is an abstract form of ‘nelli’ and can also mean ‘truth.’ The basic metaphor, however, is that of taking root, as a tree does.”
“In looking over the Aztec texts and archaeological evidence, one finds that one was to take root in one’s body, one’s psyche, in society, and in teotl—the Aztec understanding of god as nature.”
SOURCE: Purcell, Lynn S. “The Aztecs on Happiness, Pleasure and the Good Life.” APA Blog.
Four Things That Happen When a Language Dies
- We lose “The expression of a unique vision of what it means to be human”
- We lose memory of the planet’s many histories and cultures.
- We lose some of the best local resources for combatting environmental threats.
- Some people lose their mother tongue.
“What’s happening with today’s language loss is actually quite different from anything that happened before. Languages in the past disappeared and were born anew, she writes, but ‘they did so in a state of what linguists call ‘linguistic equilibrium.” In the last 500 years, however, the equilibrium that characterized much of human history is now gone. And the world’s dominant languages—or what are often called ‘metropolitan’ languages—are all now rapidly expanding at the expense of ‘peripheral’ indigenous languages. Those peripheral languages are not being replaced.”
SOURCE: Eschner, Kat. “Four Things That Happen When a Language Dies.” Smithsonian Magazine.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most translated document in the world. It requires a gargantuan leap of faith, and a good dose of ingenuity, to assume that all those translations say precisely the same thing.”
“The linguistic, ultimately conceptual, asymmetry between English and Chinese regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights urges us to be more cautious in dealing with universal values.”
“For just one example, a subtle difference between the official English and Chinese versions of the Universal Declaration reveals a much greater schism. The majority of the thirty articles in the English version of the Declaration refer to ‘everyone’ and ‘no one’, while the Chinese translation conveys all such expressions with the phrase ‘ren-ren’, ‘人人’ – literally, ‘man and man’. This linguistic nuance is significant, since it means that the two languages convey the meaning of ‘universality’ in metaphysically distinct ways.”
SOURCE: Bufacchi, Virrorio, and Vir Xiao Ouyang. “Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights in China.” Philosophy Now.
“We can never fully access another person’s perspective, but to what extent do our individual private experiences matter when it comes to language and shared understanding? According to the early 20th-century Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, the answer is ‘not at all’. A distilled rendering of Wittgenstein’s so-called ‘private language argument,’ Wittgenstein’s Beetle in the Box Analogy explains why he believed that the meaning behind language inevitably lay in our shared understanding, and not in our private minds, because we simply can’t access each other’s experiences or sensations.”
SOURCE: “Does the Meaning of Words Rest in Our Private Minds or in Our Shared Experience?” Aeon.
“The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) has a striking parallel in analytic philosophy that goes by the name of modal realism. Ever since Gottfried Leibniz argued that the problem of good and evil can be resolved by postulating that ours is the best of all possible worlds, the notion of ‘possible worlds’ has supplied philosophers with a scheme for debating the issue of the necessity or contingency of truths.”
SOURCE: Ball, Phillip. “Too Many Worlds.” Aeon.