Death and the Evolution of Language
Human Studies 33 (4):425-444 (2010)
| Abstract | My hypothesis is that the cognitive challenge posed by death might have had a co-evolutionary role in the development of linguistic faculties. First, I claim that mirror neurons, which enable us to understand others’ actions and emotions, not only activate when we directly observe someone, but can also be triggered by language: words make us feel bodily sensations. Second, I argue that the death of another individual cannot be understood by virtue of the mirror neuron mechanism, since the dead provide no neural pattern for mirroring: this cognitive task requires symbolic thought, which in turn involves emotions. Third, I describe the symbolic leap of the human species as a cognitive detachment from the here and now, allowing displaced reference: through symbols the human mind can refer to what is absent, possible, or even impossible (like the presence of a dead person). Such a detachment has had a huge adaptive impact: adopting a coevolutionary standpoint can help explain why language is as effective as environmental inputs in order to stimulate our bodily experience. In the end I suggest a further coevolutionary reversal : if language is necessary to understand the death of the other, it might also be true that the peculiar cognitive problem posed by the death of the other (the corpse is present, but the other is absent) has contributed to the crucial transition from an indexical sign system to the symbolic level, i.e., the cognitive detachment . Death and language, as Heidegger claimed, have an essential relation for humans, both from an evolutionary and a phenomenological perspective: they have shaped the symbolic consciousness that make us conceive of them | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMichael Nair-Collins (2013). Brain Death, Paternalism, and the Language of “Death”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23 (1):53-104.
Angelo Cangelosi, Alberto Greco & Stevan Harnad (2002). Symbol Grounding and the Symbolic Theft Hypothesis. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (eds.), Simulating the Evolution of Language. Springer-Verlag.
Marco Mirolli & Domenico Parisi (2009). Language as a Cognitive Tool. Minds and Machines 19 (4):517-528.
Boris Kotchoubey (2005). Pragmatics, Prosody, and Evolution: Language is More Than a Symbolic System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):136-137.
Wallace Maison (1977). Death and Destruction in Spinoza's Ethics. Inquiry 20 (1-4):403 – 417.
W. Tecumseh Fitch (2005). The Evolution of Language: A Comparative Review. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):193-203.
David C. Thomasma (1984). The Comatose Patient, the Ontology of Death, and the Decision to Stop Treatment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (2).
Roger Scruton (2012). Timely Death. Philosophical Papers 41 (3):421-434.
C. Yates (2011). Refiguring the Essential Word: The Work of the Imagination in Ricoeur's Late Apprenticeship. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (2):229-237.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-28Total downloads11 ( #100,866 of 556,898 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,898 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
