One Answer

  1. Nice question. A positive answer implies non-relativity, that is, the absoluteness of the “I”.

    B. F. Porshnev has an insanely original book ” On the beginning of Human History (problems of Paleopsychology)”, from which it can be concluded that reflection as a purely human phenomenon arose as a consequence of” suggestion”, reaching”catalepsy”. That is, “almost people” in the late Paleolithic were very suggestible (suggestion), which can be indirectly indicated by much more developed frontal lobes of the brain than in our case – up to the point that a certain signal shout of another individual (for example, the pack leader) could lead them to a “freeze-don't-move” state (catalepsy). This, as it were, blocked any reactions to external stimuli.

    But the mind could not “turn off” at this time, and it had no choice but to “turn inwards” its activity-which by default is spontaneous, spontaneous, “self-made activity” (reflection).

    Here. If you rely on this theory of his (not indisputable, but very beautiful), it turns out that yes, I would have realized. Because reflection, it turns out, arose not from the correlation “unreasonable/reasonable”, but from within – from the mind in the context of interactions within proto-human communities.


    Ah! There is also a second half of the case (this means that after rereading the answer in the morning – UPDATE). Having become what he is – self-aware, thinking, etc., a person would need something (or someone) that he would define as “not reasonable”, and from the opposition of himself with “this” – would be able to call himself “reasonable”. Such is the obligatory relativism.

    This is understandable, it is true, and it does not happen otherwise – “everything in the world is relative”, as one electrician friend of mine said, and another friend of mine – Protagoras-said that “man is the measure of all things” (which, in fact, is the same thing).

    In short, the question boils down to whether “unintelligent” rocks and trees would be enough for a person to recognize himself as “intelligent”, or whether animals would still be needed? But allow me! Even Descartes (and Leibniz, too, by the way) considered animals to be “running mechanisms”, and in this sense they were quite in his views placed on the same shelf with plants and stones: “extended substance”, it is also extended substance in Africa. And it is precisely to her that he contrasted the “thinking substance” – which, in fact, has already answered the second half of the question.

Leave a Reply