I came around a psychological test called Roschachs test and an interesting hypothes which I read in Thomas Anzs biography of Franz Kafka and that is that the interpretation of someone, here of Kafka is more expressive and telling not about the Kafka but about the biographer himself. We all interpret the world around us according to our subjective perception. There are no two objects perceived objectively by two different persons. That is the fallacy of the words, we all see under the things different denotations and definitions and these definitions have their connotations that are purely subjective. Nevertheless the definitions are also purely subjective although dictionaries try to creat a metalanguage that would fit all our communicative needs. Communication as I heard in Daniel Dennetts lecture is what distinguishes us from animals. Ants are capable of creating great ant hills but nothing else and only because they all fulfill the orders as machines. Humans on the other hand are capable of similar feats but only partly because they listen to orders. We humans are so effective because our communication is allpervasive. We do not understand each other absolutely like the ants do but we understand why we do something and what is it good for. We do not need to be machines, we can use language in order to think about the language itself which no other animal can do. Animal communication does not reach the boundaries of the communication itself whereas human language is what made us think about the language itself and thus make the communication infinite and even more effective than the communication that animals do.
Poslané z Fast notepad