What do you think?
Rate this book
Man a Machine and Man a Plant
The first modern translation of the complete texts of La Mettrie's pioneering L'Homme machine and L'Homme plante, first published in 1747 and 1748, respectively, this volume also includes translations of the advertisement and dedication to L'Homme machine. Justin Leiber's introduction illuminates the radical thinking and advocacy of the passionate La Mettrie and provides cogent analysis of La Mettrie's relationship to such important philosophical figures as Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke, and of his lasting influence on the development of materialism, cognitive studies, linguistics, and other areas of intellectual inquiry.
92 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1748
1 person is currently reading
207 people want to read
About the author
Julien Offray de La Mettrie
152 books22 followersJulien Offray de La Mettrie was a French physician and philosopher, and one of the earliest of the French materialists of the Enlightenment. He is best known for his work L'homme machine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 1, 2023
he had some good takes, ngl
February 18, 2013
La Mettrie is a sceptic, a materialist, and a physician-philosopher. He is influenced by Descartes and here, in both Man a Machine and Man a Plant, he is criticizing Descartes' dualism. In the introduction the original publisher warns that he does not know the author or agree with the content of this book, but he thought he might publish it so that it could be shown to be false and to prove, essentially, even though the word did not exist at the time, that they were not living in a totalitarian nation. Nevertheless, following its publication Man A Machine was widely burned.
The problem which arises in Descartes' dualism is the question of, if both mind and body are completely separate, how do they interact. Descartes himself thought it might have something to do with the pineal gland, but couldn't prove anything of the sort. Leibniz suggested that the material world does not exist; Malebranche claimed that the mind sends a signal to God who then moves the body. La Mattrie, on the other hand, thought it more reasonable to trade dualism for a materialism account, describing solely from experience.
The thesis of the first essay states, "Man is a machine so complicated that it is impossible at first to form a clear idea of it, and, consequently, to describe it. This is why all the investigations the greatest philosopher have made a priori, that is, by wanting to take flight with the wings of the mind, have been in vain. Only a posteriori, by unravelling the soul as one pulls out the guts of the body, can one, I do not say discover with clarity what the nature of man is, but rather attain the highest degree of probability possible on the subject." His conclusion goes something like this, to use modern terminology: our brain is like a computer processor. We have a certain capacity of learning which, if educated to our full potential, enables us to reach our full potential. The same as eating healthy will ensure us a longer life span. Therefore we are all equals and the so called "gifted" individuals are only the more privileged having been exposed to certain experiences which have benefited their minds. He draws on some conclusions of Dr. Amman, who successfully taught deaf mutes to use sign language. His "children" had to have been educated before prolonged development or else all hope is lost and they become mentally deficient. Amman certainly improved the lives of his children by teaching them to speak, otherwise they would be burdened and miserable considering the treatment of the time. La Mettrie draws an analogy between Amman's children and apes, suggesting that apes may have a potential for human language. Nevertheless, the apes have a slightly smaller brain, an older processor, with less capacity than humans, but still able. If this is true, then there isn't much difference between apes and humans. In the twentieth century scientists have attempted to prove this hypothesis. They did not experience the success La Mettrie hoped for, but nonetheless, they could develop human language equivalent to that of an average two year old. But it's impossible to tell what the future may bring, whether it's methodological failures and obvious language barriers, not failure on the ape's behalf.
Language is the most important aspect of education. The world itself is chaotic and unintelligible until we acquire tools, words to describe it. Only then can we discuss, learn, and feed our brain (our processor) information.
He proposes that humans, as well as every other living organism, are complicated arrangements of mud. Note the root word of human is "humus" which means dirt. The greater the complication in arrangement, the greater the capacity for complicated activity. Consider a simple hand with only one bendable appendage, we simply wouldn't be able to do much more than scrape food into our mouths, if that. But with our current arrangement, we are able to do so much more! The same is applied to the brain. A simple brain can only perform the most basic tasks, a more complicated one has more capacity.
How can one account for consciousness in this context? La Mettrie uses magnetism as an analogy. If we are to take a stick, wrap a copper wire around it, and charge it with electricity, the stick gains magnetism. Perhaps the same can be said about consciousness! If mud is arranged in a certain way that it creates a functioning organism complicated to a certain degree, perhaps consciousness just happens. It's not anything we can explain and La Mettrie does not say that he is absolutely certain because it's impossible to be certain about anything (refer back to his thesis statement).
Man A Plant is divided into three chapters. The first demonstrates the similarities between plants and humans (ultimately animals), the second demonstrates the differences, and the final concludes as well as addresses some criticisms. La Mettrie proposes that plants don't require intelligence or feelings as humans and other animals do because everything they need is directly available to them. Water and sunlight fall from the sky, nutrients are contained in the soil, and plants are hermaphrodites. Animals on the other hand, gather food and water, as well as seek shelter, seek mates, et cetera. But whatever is required, La Mettrie argues, nature provides. Therefore, if it is necessary for humans to develop a large brain to feed themselves, nature provides it! In other words, we evolve. As La Mettrie puts it (paraphrasing), the more an animals is able to move, the more needs said animal will have.
This book provides great mental nourishment for animal rights activists as well as anyone interested in materialism!
The problem which arises in Descartes' dualism is the question of, if both mind and body are completely separate, how do they interact. Descartes himself thought it might have something to do with the pineal gland, but couldn't prove anything of the sort. Leibniz suggested that the material world does not exist; Malebranche claimed that the mind sends a signal to God who then moves the body. La Mattrie, on the other hand, thought it more reasonable to trade dualism for a materialism account, describing solely from experience.
The thesis of the first essay states, "Man is a machine so complicated that it is impossible at first to form a clear idea of it, and, consequently, to describe it. This is why all the investigations the greatest philosopher have made a priori, that is, by wanting to take flight with the wings of the mind, have been in vain. Only a posteriori, by unravelling the soul as one pulls out the guts of the body, can one, I do not say discover with clarity what the nature of man is, but rather attain the highest degree of probability possible on the subject." His conclusion goes something like this, to use modern terminology: our brain is like a computer processor. We have a certain capacity of learning which, if educated to our full potential, enables us to reach our full potential. The same as eating healthy will ensure us a longer life span. Therefore we are all equals and the so called "gifted" individuals are only the more privileged having been exposed to certain experiences which have benefited their minds. He draws on some conclusions of Dr. Amman, who successfully taught deaf mutes to use sign language. His "children" had to have been educated before prolonged development or else all hope is lost and they become mentally deficient. Amman certainly improved the lives of his children by teaching them to speak, otherwise they would be burdened and miserable considering the treatment of the time. La Mettrie draws an analogy between Amman's children and apes, suggesting that apes may have a potential for human language. Nevertheless, the apes have a slightly smaller brain, an older processor, with less capacity than humans, but still able. If this is true, then there isn't much difference between apes and humans. In the twentieth century scientists have attempted to prove this hypothesis. They did not experience the success La Mettrie hoped for, but nonetheless, they could develop human language equivalent to that of an average two year old. But it's impossible to tell what the future may bring, whether it's methodological failures and obvious language barriers, not failure on the ape's behalf.
Language is the most important aspect of education. The world itself is chaotic and unintelligible until we acquire tools, words to describe it. Only then can we discuss, learn, and feed our brain (our processor) information.
He proposes that humans, as well as every other living organism, are complicated arrangements of mud. Note the root word of human is "humus" which means dirt. The greater the complication in arrangement, the greater the capacity for complicated activity. Consider a simple hand with only one bendable appendage, we simply wouldn't be able to do much more than scrape food into our mouths, if that. But with our current arrangement, we are able to do so much more! The same is applied to the brain. A simple brain can only perform the most basic tasks, a more complicated one has more capacity.
How can one account for consciousness in this context? La Mettrie uses magnetism as an analogy. If we are to take a stick, wrap a copper wire around it, and charge it with electricity, the stick gains magnetism. Perhaps the same can be said about consciousness! If mud is arranged in a certain way that it creates a functioning organism complicated to a certain degree, perhaps consciousness just happens. It's not anything we can explain and La Mettrie does not say that he is absolutely certain because it's impossible to be certain about anything (refer back to his thesis statement).
Man A Plant is divided into three chapters. The first demonstrates the similarities between plants and humans (ultimately animals), the second demonstrates the differences, and the final concludes as well as addresses some criticisms. La Mettrie proposes that plants don't require intelligence or feelings as humans and other animals do because everything they need is directly available to them. Water and sunlight fall from the sky, nutrients are contained in the soil, and plants are hermaphrodites. Animals on the other hand, gather food and water, as well as seek shelter, seek mates, et cetera. But whatever is required, La Mettrie argues, nature provides. Therefore, if it is necessary for humans to develop a large brain to feed themselves, nature provides it! In other words, we evolve. As La Mettrie puts it (paraphrasing), the more an animals is able to move, the more needs said animal will have.
This book provides great mental nourishment for animal rights activists as well as anyone interested in materialism!
December 24, 2021
The great danger of hard materialism is not falsity, but hubris. A person can get into an awful lot of trouble if he starts believing that being right about the fundamental nature of the universe also means being right about every one of the universe's infinite particularities.
Which is to say, Julien Offray de La Mettrie is an unruly, bombastic egoist who is a delight to read when on the attack against dualists like Descartes and idealists like Leibniz... but wildly overconfident when it comes to constructing a materialist account of the universe from scratch. It's hard to be too hard on him however, because his concept of "man as machine" really is intriguing, particularly for his time, and it's clear that he's struggling to find the language to describe this vision of humanity, which he seems to grasp more conceptually than he does in any cogent detail.
He is also limited by the science of his age. And this is where all materialists -- myself included -- can so often find themselves in trouble.
The thing is, even if the human mind is fully material, the empirical methodology we use to understand the material universe -- namely, science -- is a human pursuit, and it's subject to human limitations and failings, including bias. If you fail to recognize the epistemological limitations inherent within science, then you run the risk of not only importing error into declarations about the nature of humanity (as any ideological system might), but of giving those errors and unexamined biases a greater claim to objective truth than they might otherwise have enjoyed.
La Mettrie fails at the point when he begins to discuss details. He overplays his hand in extrapolating from very limited data, he incorporates incorrect medical information when constructing his account of the human body and mind, and his arguments are laced through with problematic presumptions about sex and heritable traits, leading to a rather misogynistic account of human nature, but also steering perilously close to arguments that have, in the past, been used to justify genocide and eugenics.
He himself believes he avoids such extreme ethical implications. Indeed, he believes materialism will correct for existing injustice; that materialism is the very basis upon which a truly compassionate, humanistic ethical system can finally be built. He argues that morality itself is a feature inherent to the material universe, and that if everyone were to subscribe to a materialist viewpoint, hatred and prejudice would cease to exist, because all would come to understand that human failings and poor behavior have their roots in nature, not in the supernatural, nor in individual, willful proclivities towards evil. But his arguments aren't particularly coherent, and his particular recommendations (like that physicians, not judges, should determine innocence or guilt based wholly on a person's physiology) aren't as comforting as he appears to think they are. His arguments also leave the question of free will completely confounded, though he wouldn't be the first... or last... materialist to struggle on that front.
But still, through the utter mess of this argument, there shines this vision: that materialism is not a debasement of the human soul, but a glorification of the universe. And I love this vision. If only it inspired the same humility in La Mettrie that it does in me.
Which is to say, Julien Offray de La Mettrie is an unruly, bombastic egoist who is a delight to read when on the attack against dualists like Descartes and idealists like Leibniz... but wildly overconfident when it comes to constructing a materialist account of the universe from scratch. It's hard to be too hard on him however, because his concept of "man as machine" really is intriguing, particularly for his time, and it's clear that he's struggling to find the language to describe this vision of humanity, which he seems to grasp more conceptually than he does in any cogent detail.
He is also limited by the science of his age. And this is where all materialists -- myself included -- can so often find themselves in trouble.
The thing is, even if the human mind is fully material, the empirical methodology we use to understand the material universe -- namely, science -- is a human pursuit, and it's subject to human limitations and failings, including bias. If you fail to recognize the epistemological limitations inherent within science, then you run the risk of not only importing error into declarations about the nature of humanity (as any ideological system might), but of giving those errors and unexamined biases a greater claim to objective truth than they might otherwise have enjoyed.
La Mettrie fails at the point when he begins to discuss details. He overplays his hand in extrapolating from very limited data, he incorporates incorrect medical information when constructing his account of the human body and mind, and his arguments are laced through with problematic presumptions about sex and heritable traits, leading to a rather misogynistic account of human nature, but also steering perilously close to arguments that have, in the past, been used to justify genocide and eugenics.
He himself believes he avoids such extreme ethical implications. Indeed, he believes materialism will correct for existing injustice; that materialism is the very basis upon which a truly compassionate, humanistic ethical system can finally be built. He argues that morality itself is a feature inherent to the material universe, and that if everyone were to subscribe to a materialist viewpoint, hatred and prejudice would cease to exist, because all would come to understand that human failings and poor behavior have their roots in nature, not in the supernatural, nor in individual, willful proclivities towards evil. But his arguments aren't particularly coherent, and his particular recommendations (like that physicians, not judges, should determine innocence or guilt based wholly on a person's physiology) aren't as comforting as he appears to think they are. His arguments also leave the question of free will completely confounded, though he wouldn't be the first... or last... materialist to struggle on that front.
But still, through the utter mess of this argument, there shines this vision: that materialism is not a debasement of the human soul, but a glorification of the universe. And I love this vision. If only it inspired the same humility in La Mettrie that it does in me.
November 12, 2017
This was a very interesting read. La Mettrie spends the course of two essays describing what for the most part may well be common knowledge now. What amazed me is that this was a banned book at one time and that he originally published it anonymously for fear of repercussions. Boy has society come a long way.
August 29, 2012
As a book of genuine philosophy, I would not rank this highly. La Mettrie's argument for materialism, is the same as Bakunin's: yes it's true, because clearly it's true. The sheer confidence in the position, followed by the sheer lack of any argument whatsoever, is entirely disheartening for someone trying to ground their materialism.
The reason this book ranks four stars, even though the philosophy is mostly absurd, is that La Mettrie is truly hysterical. Long before Darwin, La Mettrie pointed out our overwhelming uncanny resemblance to the Ape family. He was so convinced of our resemblance, and confident of the fact that we could teach Apes actual language, i.e., to speak AND understand human language, that he states if we were to dress an Ape up in human clothing "then he would be no longer either a wild man, or a man manque. He would be a real man, a little man about town." One seriously wonders if he has ever read a page of history, I've no doubt we'd throw the thing in a cage and/or enslave it to manual labor. The idea of an ape minding his own business and being a regular citizen is just too funny, and too absurd, not to grant a bonus star.
La Mettries background as a physician also offers some laughs, when it serves as a guidepost for his philosophy: "Only a posteriori, by unraveling the soul as one pulls out the guts of the body, can one, I do not say discover with clarity what the nature of man is, but rather attain the highest degree of probability on the subject."
I do want to defend La Mettrie for a moment though. I had always heard of this book as being the cornerstone of where man lost his way with nature, and began to treat all animals, and humans, as literal machines, empty of any value, or worth. This is a very superficial reading, it's clear La Mettrie is using the term machine, as synonymous with organism, and not synonymous with a watch. And this is clearly the case, given all of La Mettries points are deduced from his knowledge as a physician, whose trying to understand the body as a functioning organism, with natural needs.
Read this book for laughs, but for serious philosophy, move along...
The reason this book ranks four stars, even though the philosophy is mostly absurd, is that La Mettrie is truly hysterical. Long before Darwin, La Mettrie pointed out our overwhelming uncanny resemblance to the Ape family. He was so convinced of our resemblance, and confident of the fact that we could teach Apes actual language, i.e., to speak AND understand human language, that he states if we were to dress an Ape up in human clothing "then he would be no longer either a wild man, or a man manque. He would be a real man, a little man about town." One seriously wonders if he has ever read a page of history, I've no doubt we'd throw the thing in a cage and/or enslave it to manual labor. The idea of an ape minding his own business and being a regular citizen is just too funny, and too absurd, not to grant a bonus star.
La Mettries background as a physician also offers some laughs, when it serves as a guidepost for his philosophy: "Only a posteriori, by unraveling the soul as one pulls out the guts of the body, can one, I do not say discover with clarity what the nature of man is, but rather attain the highest degree of probability on the subject."
I do want to defend La Mettrie for a moment though. I had always heard of this book as being the cornerstone of where man lost his way with nature, and began to treat all animals, and humans, as literal machines, empty of any value, or worth. This is a very superficial reading, it's clear La Mettrie is using the term machine, as synonymous with organism, and not synonymous with a watch. And this is clearly the case, given all of La Mettries points are deduced from his knowledge as a physician, whose trying to understand the body as a functioning organism, with natural needs.
Read this book for laughs, but for serious philosophy, move along...
September 7, 2013
Tja, de mens een machine. euhm..
De reden voor dat ik zo geïnteresseerd ben in de 18de eeuw is dat ik hier het pril ontspruiten bemerk van mijn eigen denken. Het is hier dat bepaalde wereldbeelden een permanent andere invulling geven aan de toen heersende ideeën. Wat ik zo opmerkelijk vind is dat dit me heel erg helpt in het begrijpen van de eigen leefwereld - in de 21ste eeuw. het lijkt zelfs zo dat dezelfde tegenstellingen nog steeds bestaan: de manier waarop de mens met connotaties en dissonanties omgaat lijkt me bij deze 2 perioden heel erg parallel met elkaar te verlopen. Deze schijn is misschien geen toeval aangezien de toen gebruikte concepten en bewoordingen ook vandaag nog heel vaak worden aangehaald - hetzij in een latere tijd en daarom dus ook in een later/anders taalgebruik.
Lamettrie haalt heel tastbare ervaringen naar voor. Dit tot groot genoegen van mezelf die momenteel - na een cursus wijsbegeerte - de fenomenologie en haar existentiële zus nauw aan het hart genegen heeft. De daaruit volgende conclusies zijn legio. De mens zit niet anders in elkaar dan het 'lagere' dier - beiden machines dus. Dit illustreert hij met een paar frappante voorbeelden.
Allemaal heel amusant... zou je denken.
Echter dikt Lamettrie zich in het hele boekje - een dikke 100 pagina's - in voor eventuele misvattingen van ideeën. Deze kwalitatieve oppervlakkigheden maat dat zijn noemenswaardige ideeën niet echt uitgewerkt als uitgesproken naar voren kwamen. Echter wie de biografie van de schrijver er even op nahoudt, weet dat Lamettrie - zelfs nog steeds vandaag de dag, getuige een kort gesprek over de man met een buurtbewoner van me - doorheen zijn tijd altijd als een zwart schaap bestempeld werd.
Het is jammer dat door druk van zijn medemens - uiteraard al opgemerkt door Lamettrie zelf - dat dit werkje niet echt tot een goed doordacht essay kan beschouwd worden. Het was leuk om lezen, maar nog leuker is het om het boekje terug in de kast te zetten.
De reden voor dat ik zo geïnteresseerd ben in de 18de eeuw is dat ik hier het pril ontspruiten bemerk van mijn eigen denken. Het is hier dat bepaalde wereldbeelden een permanent andere invulling geven aan de toen heersende ideeën. Wat ik zo opmerkelijk vind is dat dit me heel erg helpt in het begrijpen van de eigen leefwereld - in de 21ste eeuw. het lijkt zelfs zo dat dezelfde tegenstellingen nog steeds bestaan: de manier waarop de mens met connotaties en dissonanties omgaat lijkt me bij deze 2 perioden heel erg parallel met elkaar te verlopen. Deze schijn is misschien geen toeval aangezien de toen gebruikte concepten en bewoordingen ook vandaag nog heel vaak worden aangehaald - hetzij in een latere tijd en daarom dus ook in een later/anders taalgebruik.
Lamettrie haalt heel tastbare ervaringen naar voor. Dit tot groot genoegen van mezelf die momenteel - na een cursus wijsbegeerte - de fenomenologie en haar existentiële zus nauw aan het hart genegen heeft. De daaruit volgende conclusies zijn legio. De mens zit niet anders in elkaar dan het 'lagere' dier - beiden machines dus. Dit illustreert hij met een paar frappante voorbeelden.
Allemaal heel amusant... zou je denken.
Echter dikt Lamettrie zich in het hele boekje - een dikke 100 pagina's - in voor eventuele misvattingen van ideeën. Deze kwalitatieve oppervlakkigheden maat dat zijn noemenswaardige ideeën niet echt uitgewerkt als uitgesproken naar voren kwamen. Echter wie de biografie van de schrijver er even op nahoudt, weet dat Lamettrie - zelfs nog steeds vandaag de dag, getuige een kort gesprek over de man met een buurtbewoner van me - doorheen zijn tijd altijd als een zwart schaap bestempeld werd.
Het is jammer dat door druk van zijn medemens - uiteraard al opgemerkt door Lamettrie zelf - dat dit werkje niet echt tot een goed doordacht essay kan beschouwd worden. Het was leuk om lezen, maar nog leuker is het om het boekje terug in de kast te zetten.
June 16, 2008
[referring to "Man a Machine"]
A great, classic writing on viewing and explaining humans from a naturalistic (non-supernatural) perspective. Ahead of its time.
A great, classic writing on viewing and explaining humans from a naturalistic (non-supernatural) perspective. Ahead of its time.
July 24, 2016
La Mettrie is witty, smart and progressive. Entertaining read, at least tolerable if you're forced to read it...
July 13, 2014
talked about it here: http://www.5cense.com/14/370.htm
September 21, 2015
'Žmogus-mašina' stebėtinai įžvalgi knyga
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews