No More Learning

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 336 Hegel was right
It is interesting to notice that anthropoid monkeys have in the lar- ynx and its neighborhood the whole required mechanism for producing articulated sounds. They do not speak, and there lies the whole prob- lem; but physically they have everything is required to talk.
Many physicalist hopes were placed on our set of teeth, on whether the superior premolar has three or two roots, on the number and position of the cusps and grooves, on whether the size of the molars increases or decreases. But these are also differences of degree, and specialists talk with caution: 'generally' there is such and such in man. For example:
The upper first bicuspid generally has two roots, and sometimes one. The second generally has one root, sometimes two; the inferior premolars gen- erally have one root each. [. . . ] the upper molars have four (sometimes three) cusps whereas the lowers have five (sometimes four). The number and position of the cups and the character of the grooves between them differ among individuals. Generally, the upper molars have three roots and the lowers two. In persons of European origin, the first molar usu- ally is large, the second smaller, and the third the smallest. In some other groups the third molar es larger than the second though smaller than the first (EB 17, 283, 1).
The reader understands that, with these premises, if afterwards some differences of this kind are discovered between the dentition of some monkeys and the human dentition, saying that that difference does mean a transition of species while the difference between the Ti- betan molars and the European ones is not decisive is just an emotive arbitrariness. Evidently, whoever makes this decision already knew that the Tibetan and the European were men and the monkey was not. Such knowledge is not obtained from the analysis of the molars. This explains why the eminent English paleontologist Kenneth Page Oak- ley concluded that no physical evidence is enough to distinguish man from animal. Paul Overhage says: "Oakley explicitly empathizes that after the discovery of new fossils a definition of man is impossible on the base of just bodily and anatomical traits that clearly distinguish man from animal and from its bodily structure" (1961, 117).
In Hegel's time the shape of the teeth was as arbitrary as the lobe of the ear; so that Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, founder of the physical anthropology, pointed it out as an anatomical characteristic that distin- guished man from the rest of the animals. It was discovered afterwards
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Science and Literature 337 that some monkeys have it. And regarding all these physical issues
Hegel said very well:
By its exteriority it is easy to notice that the knowledge of the concept did not start in them; it was rather an obscure presentiment, an indeterminate but deeper sense, a guess of the essential, what preceded the discovery of species in nature and spirit; and only after that it was seek, for the abstract intellect, some determinate exteriority (WL II 456).
Up to our days, anthropologists and paleontologists have failed with all the physical traits they have proposed as distinctive, in spite of the fact that they ignored a fundamental methodological requirement: they were supposed to discover what was essential, i. e. , a trait that ex- plained the existence of everything else and of the set as such; it would have to be a trait that explain why man has thought and animals do not. This is way things like the ear's lobe are ludicrous.
Even if they were able to detect in the future a physical trait exclu- sive of man, Hegel's paragraph hit the bull's-eye: they first determine by other methods which existing bodies are men and which are ani- mals, and only after that they look for a physical trait that adorns the former and is absent in the latter. This means that the concept of man was not obtained a posteriori but through self-consciousness. When we say 'this is a man' we actually say 'he is like me'.
It is self-determination what we perceive through self-consciousness as constitutive of the self. "I am only what I am related with my free- dom" (Rph no. 117 Z).
When Ortega says 'I am myself and my circumstances', he is no doubt thinking in the influence that other factors, including animal- ity, can exert over me. But, if that was the case, things like air, soil, vegetation, the Sun, and the whole cosmos should be incorporated to the definition of man. But then the definition does not accomplish its goal, the essential goal of every definition, which in this case would be distinguishing man from everything else. It lacks rigor such inso- lence from Ortega; it overlooks that the mental operation called defi- nition is subject to certain essential rules. Hegel said that man is not free because certain movement commences within him, but because he can stop it and decide himself to what point such factor is deter- minant or not at all. This is why I am only what am related with my freedom.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 338 Hegel was right
When I call other objects men, the only thing I mean is that they are like me. It is principally a moral act. Referring to the aforementioned monstrous priest, Harlan Lane comments:
But savages, primates and wild children all share with the abbe this lack of resemblance to the man in the street. The status of savages was decided once and for all by papal bull in 1537: the Americans discovered by Colum- bus were declared human. (1979, 22)
There were no empirical data by which the Europeans could know if the Indian and the black are men or not. The atrocity committed by some or many Europeans when denying them their humanity did not consist in that they were seeing that they were men and they denied it knowingly; but in the fact that they did not executed the moral act of recognizing that the other is like me and hence he is an end and not means and hence he has infinite dignity. Without this moral act is im- possible to corroborate that the object in front of me is a man. You do not know that such object is a man as long as you do not perceive the 'you shall not murder'.
"What is free exists only for what is free; only for a free man the other exists as free too" (PR III 94).
"The kind of relationship of man with other men, that is what is hu- man" (PR II, II 65).
Those who think that demonstrating the infinite dignity of every human being is hard, is because they think that first they could verify empirically the existence of a human being, and afterwards it should be inquired if he has or not the property of infinite dignity, which, for being a valuation, lies outside the scientific. But 'man' is not em- pirical data. There is no knowledge of a man without moral obligation regarding that man, i. e. , without categorical imperative. And this is synonymous with infinite dignity. The concept of 'end and not means' has no other content than the one of infinite dignity. "The Scripture says that God made man in his image; that is the concept of man" (PR III 127).
Historians and philosophers fool themselves in the same fashion when they believe they can constitute without value judgments the object of study of historiography and this is why they reject that hu- man history has a goal and is directed toward an end. They think that there are many 'real' facts that are not directed toward the thorough
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Science and Literature 339
realization of the concept of spirit. But how do they know that such facts are human and hence that they pertain to history? "The mere de- sire, savagery and coarseness of will are left out of the stage and scope of universal history" (VG 95).
Human acts are directed towards the humane, towards what is every time more humane. Without such finality they would not be human. Humanity is not an instantaneous entity; it is not a timeless verifiable entity. Its movement towards true humanity pertains essentially to the object. Loose facts and particular cultures can only be judged and de- scribed according to this movement. Those who try to verify humanity as it is at a particular moment fool themselves trying to do without an end ofhistory. They are implicitly saying that it is completely human as it is. This is a value judgment, false by the way.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bibliography
Adorno Theodor W. , Tres estudios sobre Hegel, tr. Vi? ctor Sa? nchez de Zavala, Madrid, Taurus, 1969.
Althaus Paul, DerBriefan die Ro? mer, Go? ttlngen, Vandenhoeck, 1966.
Baker J. J. W. y G. A. Allien, Biologi? a e investigacio? n cienti? fica, tr. George y Figueroa,
Me? xico, fei, 1970.
Bastin Ted (ed. ), Quantum Theory and Beyond, Cambridge, U. R, 1971. BlokhintsevD. I. , The Phiiosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Reidel. Dordrecht, 1968. Bohr Niels, Fi? sica ato? mica y conocimiento humano, tr. Albino Yusta, Madrid, Aguilar,
1964.
Bonsiepen Wolfgang, cf. Po? ggeler.
Born Max, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Nueva York, Dover, 1962.
Brillouin Leo? n, Relativity Reexamined, Nueva York, Academic Press, 1970.
Bunge Mario, Philosophy of Physics, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1973.
Capek Milic, El Impacto Filoso? n? co de la Fi? sica Contempora? nea, tr. Eduardo Gallardo
Ruiz, Madrid, Tecnos, 1973.
, Bergson and Modem Physics, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1971.
Carnap Rudolf, The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, tr. Rolf A. George, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969.
Cranfield C. E. B.
, The Gospel According to St. Mark, U. P. , Cambridge, 1966. D'Abro A. , The Evolution of Scientin? c Thought from Newton to Einstein, Nueva York,
Dover, 1950.
, The Rise of Modern Physics, 2 vols. , Nueva York, Dover, 1952.
? ? ? ? Dingle Herbert, cf. Schilpp.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 342 Hegel was right
Dirac P. A. M. , The Principies of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford, Clarendon, 1981. Dyson Freeman, Disturbing the Universe. Harper and Row, Nueva York, 1979. Eddington Arthur, Space-Time and Gravitation. U. R. Cambridge, 1978 (1920). Einstein Albert, La Relatividad, tr. Ute Schmidt de Cepeda, Me? xico, Grijalbo, 1971.
, y Leopold Infeld, La Fi? sica, aventura del pensamiento (orig. The Evolution of Physics), ti. Rafael Grinfeld, Buenos Aires, Losada, 1984.
, cf. Schilpp i y n.
Elias Norbert, U? ber den Prozess der Zivilisation, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1977, 2 vols. D'Espagnat Bernard, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Massachusets,
Benjami? n, 1976.
Evans-Pritchard E. E. , Social Anthropology, Free Press, Nueva York, 1951.
Findlay J. N. , Hegel, a Re-examination, Londres, Alien Unwin, 1958.
Frisch O. R, cf. Bastin.
Garaudy Roger, Dieu est mort, e? tude sur Hegel Pari? s, puf, 1962.
Grundmann Waler, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Berli? n, Evangelische Verlag-
sanstalt, 1968.
Gunkel Hermann, Ge? nesis, Go? ttingen, Vandenhoeck, 1966.
Harris Marvin, The Rise of Anthropological Theory, Nueva York, Crowell, 1968. Heinrichs Johannes, Die Logik der 'Pha? nomenologie des Geistes', Bonn, Bouvier, 1974. Heisenberg Werner, "U? ber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und
mechanischer Beziehungen", Zeitschri? n? fu? r Physik 33 (1925). pp. 879-893. Henrich Dieter, Hegel im Kontext, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1971.
Hill Winfred, Teori? as contempora? neas del aprendizaje, tr. Eva Flora W. de Setaro,
Me? xico, Paido? s, 1983.
D'Hondt Jacques, Hegel, filo? sofo de la historia viviente, tr. Ani? bal C. Leal, Buenos Aires,
Amorrortu, 1971.
Hyppolite Jean, Genese et structure de la phe? nome? nologie de 1 'esprit de Hegel, Pari? s,
Aubier, 1964, 2 vols.
, Logique et existence, Pari? s, puf, 1953.
Jammer Max, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, Nueva York, McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Jime? nez Huerta Mariano, Derecho penal mexicano, Me? xico, Porru? a, 1968ss, 4 vols. Kaufmann Walter, Hegel, a Reinterpretation, Nueva York, Anchor, 1966.
Kelsen Hans, Teori? a pura del derecho, tr. Moise? s Nilve, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1968.
, Teori? a general del estado, tr. Luis Legaz Lacambra, Me? xico, Editora Nacional, 1965.
Kilmister C. W. , cf. Bastin.
Koje? ve Alexandre, Introduction a? la lecture de Hegel, Pari? s, Gallimard, 1947.
Ko? nig Franz, Cristo y las religiones de la tierra, tr. Ramo? n Valde? s del Toro, Madrid,
bac, 1960, 3 vols.
Koppers Wilhelm, cf. Ko? nig.
Kroeber A. L. , The Nature of Culture, Chicago, U. R, 1952.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Science and Literature 343
Kroeber A. L. , El estilo y la evolucio? n de la cultura, tr. A? ngel Guillen, Guadarrama, Madrid, 1969.
, Review of' Primitive Society'. American Anthropologist 22 (1920), pp. 377-381 Kuss Otto, Der Ro? mer-Brief, Regensburg, Pustet, 1963.
Labarrie? re Pierre-Jean, Structures et mouvement dialectique dans la phe? nome? nologie de
l'Esprit de Hegel, Pari? s, Aubier, 1968.
Lane Harlan, El nin? o salvaje de Aveyron, tr. Mario Carretero, Madrid, Alianza, 1984. Von Laue Max, cf. Schilpp.
Lauer Quentin, Essays in Hegelian Dialectic, Nueva York, Fordham University Press.
1977.
, A Reading ofHegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Nueva York, Fordham Univer-
sity Press, 1982.
, Hegel's Concept of God, Albany, State University of Nueva York Press, 1982. , Hegel's Idea of Philosophy, Nueva York, Forham University Press, 1983.
Lowie Robert, Primitive Society, Nueva York, Boni and Liveright, 1920.
Luhmann Niklas y Habermas Ju? rgen, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie,
Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1976.
Luka? cs Georg, Der junge Hegel Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1973, 2 vols.
Maier Josef, On Hegel's Critique of Kant, Nueva York, amS, 1966.
Marcuse Herbert, Razo? n y revolucio? n, tr. Julieta Fombona de Sucre, Madrid, Alian-
za, 1972.
Margenau Henry, Physics and Philosophy, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1978.
Maslow Abraham H. , Motivation and Personality, Nueva York, Harper and Row,
1970.
, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Nueva York, Viking, 1975.
Michel Otto, DerBrief an die Ro? mer, Go? ttingen, Vandenhoeck, 1966. Miller Gary J.