|
 chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
 The true nature of man 
#871058 - 09/09/02 01:18 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This isn't so much a debate as it is a poll. I am curious as to what people think the true nature of man is......Are we basically evil, war mongerers that are only interested in our own greed? OR....are we basically genuine, caring people that make the occasional mistake?
I'll give the first reply: I feel that man is basically good!!! We as individuals have nothing to gain by helping others in need yet people do so all the time. I think there is way more good in the world than evil but let the media tell it and we are in a living hell. Don't be misled by what the TV shows you.
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
 
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,590
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 14 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871075 - 09/09/02 01:40 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i think our nature is at its root neither good nor bad...... or maybe both, good and bad. I think that when people take a turn toward the good or bad, it has alot to do with their surroundings and their overall up bringing. also, i dont believe that we could ever truley be all good, or all bad in our nature, because with out one we wouldnd know the other, nature in its very definition (or at least mine) needs to have some sort of balance to it, the whol yin and yang deal, i hope im making sence, im pretty stoned......lol
--------------------
how's your WOW?
Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
 Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871083 - 09/09/02 01:45 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
All humans are sovereign divine beings composed of love and light whose original nature is goodness. Only through the illusions of material reality do we lose focus on this truth.
--------------------
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,590
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 14 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Shroomism]
#871091 - 09/09/02 01:49 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
oh wow.... too deep for me, lost me there.......lol  but how can you have goodness, with out the bad to compare it to? really....if we were all good in nature, then how did so many bad people come about? if only good was in our nature, how would we know how to be bad? i believe that our origonal nature consist of both the good and the bad, with the free will to determine which to choose.
--------------------
how's your WOW?
Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: wrestler_az]
#871096 - 09/09/02 01:54 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Good and bad.. polarities.. this is how we perceive it.
I'm saying humans at the spirit level are composed of the same unlimitied potential and creation that the original creation has... creation both good and bad..simultaneously. I suppose you could call Creation the good and Destruction the bad. Our inherit nature is creation, love... but in a polarized reality such as this third dimension we can lose focus on that and focus on destruction..fear. Two sides of the same thing. [/babble]
--------------------
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,590
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 14 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Shroomism]
#871110 - 09/09/02 02:05 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
ya i guess...... maybe ill reread this thread tomarow, with a more clear mind..... im having a hard time understanding the concept of PURE goodness. i dont believe such a thing exists.....even GOD has the potential to be bad, that is, his nature contains both the powers to create and destroy, and he has used both at times.....sure, we were created with nothing but good intentions, but some of the worst crimes in history had good intentions......the fact that we were created with all good things in mind does not change the fact that it is in our nature to be either....we are created with the same unlimmited pontential as our creator both good and bad, and givven the opprutinity to chose between the two, hence making our origonal nature a combination of the two.....
--------------------
how's your WOW?
Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,006
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: wrestler_az]
#871114 - 09/09/02 02:07 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Oh yeah I forgot all about free will. That's the one universal truth.
--------------------
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871320 - 09/09/02 07:33 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think that when we are young and innocent it is the environment that shapes us to have "evil" or a destructive nature. I think we are all good-natured but it's the different aspects of material reality that cause us to fear and destroy.
Look at dogs, for example... If you've ever seen a dog raised in a bad environment, where their owner uses physical force against them and puts them in a state of constant fear, you can see that the dog turns to violence rather quickly. If you raise a dog yourself and use love and care with it, it will retain those innocent or "good" qualities.
--------------------
 { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
akyouser_oner
unclefuckerextrordinaire
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 546
Loc: standing in the shadows a...
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871352 - 09/09/02 08:01 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
it depends: on the surface, the ego is mostly about greed. money, fame, recognition... all of these things must be maintained in order to have a healthy ego. if you delve deeper, i think that we are all one and therefore are good (ie. we are all in it together for a common goal, whatever it might be)...
--------------------
-akyouser.oner
<(((((((((((((((@~~~
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871623 - 09/09/02 10:36 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Mankind is evil.
|
Metasyn
one
Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 239
Loc: PNW
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871714 - 09/09/02 11:05 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Who each one of us are I believe to be fundamentally good. It is when you get more than one person together in the same place at the same time that competition arises, and this is where most evil deeds come from. I think that to fully realize our inherent goodness we must abandon our notions of self and other and realize that we are all part of the universe striving for the same thing: life and love.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Metasyn]
#871839 - 09/09/02 06:50 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I hear you. I think people are the best when they are sleeping.
|
ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,713
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 11 hours, 49 minutes
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#871980 - 09/09/02 08:11 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
How about none of the above (not the posts, good or evil)? I think humans are fundamentally amoral.
An interesting place to study thoughts on this topic is the early Confucianist philosophers. They were very interested in the topic, as the result also tells how to get people to behave properly.
--------------------
Happy mushrooming!
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#872081 - 09/09/02 08:57 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Are we basically evil, war mongerers that are only interested in our own greed?
(war mongerers = warmongers)
I think history fairly clearly bears this out seeing as Homo sapiens have most likely wiped out Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthal man, any other intelligent hominids and most large predators. Then moved on to genocide in Nigeria, Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Somalia, et al.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: ToxicMan]
#872095 - 09/09/02 09:06 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hey! How come you didn't stop by my thread? Huh huh huh? What are ya? Stuck-up?
We're having a blast in there and I think we're just about to bask in the light of the overarching metaphor where everything is connected to everything else.
Sometimes I find that slightly more interesting that answering the thought provoking question: "What are these?"
Cheers,
|
dogkisser
E victim
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 324
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#872139 - 09/09/02 09:24 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I do think we all have an evil part but keepin it down is what most of us do the best. I believe that the nature of a man/women is individual and doesn`t apply to everyone, the nature is our instincts.
(just a thought)
--------------------
Once the doors of perception have been unlocked, Never again can they be locked, Only restricted..if one knows how...
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/hallucinogen/index.html
Drugs - Life
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#872273 - 09/09/02 10:28 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We are animals, struggling to survive at all costs like any other animal. If that makes us good, then we is good. If that makes us bad, then we is bad. 'Good' and 'Bad' are just concepts made up by humans to judge each other anyway. Some of our evolutionary advantages make us seem gooder to each other (empathy, love), and some of them make us badder (greed, cell phones).
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#872432 - 09/09/02 11:42 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You can't really generalize humanity as 'good' or 'bad'. You have humans like Mother Teresa who enter this world, and then you have humans like Adolf Hitler who enter this world.
There are bad humans, and there are good humans. There is nothing in between.
--------------------
|
blink
eye of horus
Registered: 03/31/02
Posts: 11,349
Loc: Geographic Location (Stat...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#872441 - 09/09/02 11:49 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I believe that Humans are not evil/good much like Cyberchump
and that our judgements of good and bad are simple, and relative. Hitler wouldn't look that bad if we ended up in a nuclear winter.
We are simply whatever the sum of our memories make us
Shitty childhood? probably going to be bad
Great childhood? probaly going to be good
probaly= there are factors concerning chemical imbalances that may increase the likeliness of either. As are there are exeptions simply because of free will
--------------------
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: blink]
#872472 - 09/09/02 12:35 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yea the sum of our memories seems to reflect on human memory universally (or human history)
we've had a shitty upbringing but we're just now starting to make sense of it and clear our heads of that negativity..
spiraling correlations.
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,590
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 14 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: blink]
#872922 - 09/09/02 04:04 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i believe free will is a bigger factor in this equation than you realize. i believe that in the case where the upbringing of a child is the sole reason he or she is the way he or she is, with disregard to free will is really the exception. regardless of how we are brought up, it is ultimatly our decision to be who we are, and to try to blame that on our upbringing is just another way we like to disregard responsibility for our own actions.....although our upbringing does play a major role in our this decision making process, it is not the determining factor......or at least thats how i see it
--------------------
how's your WOW?
Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: ]
#873444 - 09/09/02 10:37 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Mushrooms: So why evil? Obviously you have your pick of evil deeds that have been done in the past, but there are many good deeds as well. Just curious as to your reasons behind your answers.
Swami: I agree that mankind has definitely laid a path of destruction but do you think it is representative of the majority of mankind or of those that had charisma and strong leadership that were able to rally enough men of weaker character to go claim the apple of their eye?
cyberchump: do you equate us with all other animals? Are we seriously nothing better than instinctual chimps that happen to have a few more lucky evolutionary breaks? Certainly a valid thought but it seems intuitive (to me) that there is something more.
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
Edited by chemkid (09/09/02 10:40 PM)
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#873454 - 09/09/02 10:55 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think there is a "true nature of man". I don't like to think that there is a way that we are supposed to be, be it good or evil.
Can a sentient being have a "nature" imposed on him? No. We have instincts, we have evolutionary traits and behavioral tendencies but free will overrides them all.
|
Amoeba665
strange
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 275
Loc: a hidden microutopia at t...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#873463 - 09/09/02 11:08 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i think that mankind is stuck in a bad position, being caretaker of the earth is a stressful job, and mankind doesn't seem to be doing very well at it. but i think mankind is inherently good, he just has to work a little harder at overcoming the difficulties surrounding him to evolve and bring out his true nature.
--------------------
---
|
Typingwords
Veteran Seasonal PNW Hunter
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 171
Loc: seattle-ish area, WA
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Amoeba665]
#873504 - 09/10/02 12:06 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We live in an "evil" society, that is the problem. Society is based on competition; society = man against man. Society is our lives, it is our relationship with one another. Therefore it should be based on what is important in life, it should be based on love.
Sorry if this post is retartedly irrelevant, my brain seems to be deteriorating lately....seewhat i meahn>?
--------------------
everything everyone everywhere.
forever and ever
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Typingwords]
#873839 - 09/10/02 05:07 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Good point typing. Man isn't evil, the society is. Seems we got off track when we started banding into larger groups during the ice age around 20,000 years ago. Before that we'd lived quite happily for the previous hundred millennia in small groups based around sharing and equality for all. Somehow in joining larger groups we got off track.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Swami]
#873856 - 09/10/02 05:19 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
think history fairly clearly bears this out seeing as Homo sapiens have most likely wiped out Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthal man, any other intelligent hominids and most large predators.
Well there's certainly no evidence to suggest this. Pre Ice age man the human population was about the same as gorillas and chimpanzees now. They were endangered species. Endangered species become extinct all the time. Each human had around 100,000 square kilometers of land to wander around in. Committing genocide in a situation like this is to all intents and purposes utterly impossible.
It's more than likely these groups simply died out through lack of successful reproduction.
Germany etc are cases where society has developed characteristics foreign to most human beings natural inclination. Adolf Eichmann would never have dreamed of going up to a stranger and knifing them out of his own bloodlust yet he followed orders in a warped society and killed millions. There is a big difference here. Look to the society in these cases, not the individual.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (09/10/02 05:25 AM)
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#874030 - 09/10/02 06:29 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
cyberchump: do you equate us with all other animals? Are we seriously nothing better than instinctual chimps that happen to have a few more lucky evolutionary breaks? Certainly a valid thought but it seems intuitive (to me) that there is something more.
What is this great distinction that makes us so different? Is it the ability to use tools? Build structures? Birds and rodents do both of those things, probably before we did. We simply are the most highly evolved species of animal; that's all. If you believe in evolution I don't know how you could think such a distinction occurred at some point in history. When was it? 235026 BC? Our intellectual development was a continuous progression. We think we are special because we, as a species, are conceited. We seem to think this planet is ours and only ours, and other species are just living their lesser lives around us. Ants probably think the same thing. Perhaps this apparent 'intuition' is a result of human-centric religious mythologies that still tend to shape our beliefs, even those of atheists. Humans probably started thinking they were special the day man created God in his own image. If I were you I would question this intuition of yours. If you don't know why you believe something, I would ask, why do you believe it?
One of our inventions was conceptual language. 'Good' and 'bad' did not exist before we created them. Other animals are capable of empathy, love and hatred, but they for some reason aren't arrogant enough to pigeonhole behaviors into the holier-than-thou notions of 'good' and 'bad'. Maybe our unprecidented level of arrogance is this magical distinction.
Sharks kill baby whales and begin to eat them while they are still alive. Are they cruel or evil? No! They are only answering nature's call of hunger. Before humans were around there was nobody to judge a particular act as right or wrong. There were no laws; it was pure anarchy and still is for every other species.
If you think there we are special, then when, along our evolutionary progression, do you think we became special?
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Edited by CyberChump (09/10/02 06:35 AM)
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#882184 - 09/13/02 01:03 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
What is this great distinction that makes us so different?
In reply to:
If you think there we are special, then when, along our evolutionary progression, do you think we became special?
At the very point when we were able to ask "what is this great distinction..."!
Make no mistake, I fully believe in evolution. Contrary to popular opinion from both evolutionists and creationists; I believe that the two can coexist without facing off. (try reading "Finding Darwins God": excellent read for anyone) There is however a point where traditional evolutionists and my opinion diverge (obviously). My question to you is "what is this great non-distinction you make?" You say there is no right or wrong except in human perception. Well I agree. Animals have no concept of right or wrong because they are functions of their instincts and the environment. That again is why we are different. We don't simply roll through life hunting, mating, eating, sleeping, etc. without considering the consequences. I submit to you; if you believe there is no "real" right or wrong then surely you would embrace the man who murders your mother or who rapes your daughter. I suspect that something in you knows these scenarios to be wrong. THIS is the great distinction. We understand the things we do, not just instinctually know that killing the gazelle lets me survive or mating with thirteen females ensures the propogation of my species.
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
In(di)go
People of the sun.
Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 8,157
Loc: Cologne, Germany
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Xlea321]
#882212 - 09/13/02 01:18 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Look to the society in these cases, not the individual.
completely agree with you there... if you take hitler for instance... i know only a few human beeings that wouldnt flame me down when i say that hitler is in heaven (given you believe in heaven)... i think nobody does anything wrong according to their view of the world... the shame in the nazi story was not hitler... anyone could have come up with that kinda crazy idea... in fact there are millions that still think and behave that way... the shame was that the whole society followed... everyone just nodded along without even thinking about what was happening... if you come up with a crazy idea and millions of people start to agree with you it will prove not so crazy after all, don't you think? so i agree with alex, one should look at the society, not at the individual...
sadly society also forms individuals, and these individuals are part of society, so it's a vicious cycle... all in all i think human nature is good... if you would put 2 human beeings together and leave them alone from the beginning they would be good to each other, and good to their environment because they would observe "what is so" and "what works"... sadly our society twists our minds so much that we fail to observe such simple things...
--------------------
Edited by Lozt Soul (09/13/02 01:20 PM)
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#882371 - 09/13/02 02:31 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
My question to you is "what is this great non-distinction you make?"
That's like asking me to disprove the existence of God. You made the claim that we're different than animals.
In reply to:
You say there is no right or wrong except in human perception. Well I agree. Animals have no concept of right or wrong because they are functions of their instincts and the environment. That again is why we are different. We don't simply roll through life hunting, mating, eating, sleeping, etc. without considering the consequences.
I don't believe that animals roll through life hunting, mating, eating, sleeping, etc without considering the consequences. I believe animals DO have emotions, and can have their feelings hurt, feel betrayed and have friends. I think that humans are just as much functions of their instincts and environments as animals are (by 'animals' I mean non-human animals).
In reply to:
I submit to you; if you believe there is no "real" right or wrong then surely you would embrace the man who murders your mother or who rapes your daughter. I suspect that something in you knows these scenarios to be wrong. THIS is the great distinction.
Of course I would not embrace the man who killed my mother. Even though I believe "right" and "wrong" are human inventions, I am still only human and am susceptible to emotional reactions to the events you describe. Branding them with a subjective word-label does not change that.
I also suspect that many of the more intelligent animals would react similarly. Try killing a polar bear mother's cub an see how she reacts. Or a seeing-eye-dog's master. Human levels of intelligence and communication make our moral opinions more visible and we are better equipped to identify say, a family member being hurt, but I think they exist in animals as well. I'm sure if the polar bear were capable of language and semantics she would have some nasty words for you.
If that distinction is out there, you have yet to find it.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Edited by CyberChump (09/13/02 06:22 PM)
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#884821 - 09/16/02 03:39 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
*BUMP*
This is a good thread people.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#889758 - 09/17/02 09:42 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I guess I would have to agree with you that at some level animals feel emotions as well but I don't think there is any comparison to human emotions. If I were to kill a polar bears cub I think the nasty reaction is more out of an instinct for the perpetuation of the species than for it's familial bonds. Again, I would think that at some level the mother would miss the cub for some undefined period of time but I don't think it would have the capacity to dwell on the fact.
Humans do have the basic survival instinct however, A human mother protecting her child has no concern for the perpetuation of the species. It is pure love and emotion that keeps this child protected. In fact I would say that most humans never contemplate the perpetuation of the species. We basically aren't driven by this instinct (unless we were an endangered species maybe).
Anyway, because of this, this is the Distinction for which I say man is different than animals thus there is a very definable "right and wrong".
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#890273 - 09/18/02 04:25 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
According to Richard Dawkins all humans beings are is "selfish gene robots" who'se only purpose is to propagate the species.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#890371 - 09/18/02 05:18 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
I guess I would have to agree with you that at some level animals feel emotions as well but I don't think there is any comparison to human emotions.
I'm not trying to argue that a non-human animal's emotions are as complex or as powerful as a human's. Since we are more highly evolved, we have a greater intellectual capacity for the dynamics of emotion, but I don't believe a human's emotions are a different mental activity than an animal's emotions. In other words, I don't think the alleged human/animal distinction lies in emotional capacity. Anyone with a dog can recognize the genuine love it has for its master. Anyone with a pet chimpanzee can see the human-ness of animal love more clearly in their pet, because it has greater brainpower, and thus greater (or more human-like) capacity for emotion. If one were to have a homo erectus for a pet, the human-ness of its emotions would be even closer to approaching the level that we homo sapiens enjoy (and lament.)
The bottom line is that emotional development progresses gradually throughout evolution, and at no point did a clear distinction occur where we became beings of a completely different sort than our primal ancestors.
Of course, this is assuming you believe in evolution. I don't recall if you do.
In reply to:
If I were to kill a polar bears cub I think the nasty reaction is more out of an instinct for the perpetuation of the species than for it's familial bonds. Again, I would think that at some level the mother would miss the cub for some undefined period of time but I don't think it would have the capacity to dwell on the fact.
Heheh the polar bears weren't the best example, but I'll stick with it. If you could somehow prove that polar bears don't have the capacity to dwell on another's death, and humans do, is that a clear distinction? What constitutes 'dwelling' and what doesn't?
In reply to:
Humans do have the basic survival instinct however, A human mother protecting her child has no concern for the perpetuation of the species. It is pure love and emotion that keeps this child protected. In fact I would say that most humans never contemplate the perpetuation of the species. We basically aren't driven by this instinct (unless we were an endangered species maybe).
I strongly disagree. Our emotions have developed to be very powerful for the sole purpose of perpetuation of our genes. We may not consciously contemplate acting to support genetic perpetuation, but it IS the reason that we like sex, fall in love, bond with our children, and hate our enemies. The drive to love each other and the drive to perpetuate our species are inseparable, IMO. Emotions developed as evolutionary advantages over other species. The animal that cares if its young are eaten is more likely to have its genes survive than the animal that is apathetic.
Emotions encourage us to act in ways that are, or at least were at one time, advantageous to our genes' survival. Emotions are evolutionary devices used by humans in the same way sharks use their ampullae of lorenzini to help survive. Same with turtles and their shells, or elephants and their great memories.
In reply to:
Anyway, because of this, this is the Distinction for which I say man is different than animals thus there is a very definable "right and wrong".
Again, right and wrong and good and bad are concepts humans have created using their powerful brains to make convenient judgements, and thus make life easier. Who is to say dolphins don't create concepts in their mind of what is 'good' and 'bad.' Fish good; jellyfish bad, for example. They don't have the capacity to speak of these concepts or write them down, but I am pretty sure they make mental associations that are very similar to the human's concepts of good and bad.
I think it is quite obvious that the majority of animals make similar associations. The reason hornets have bright yellow stripes is to remind other species that hornets are dangerous to try to eat. The yellow stripes would never have evolved if other species couldn't learn to judge that particular stimulus (the sight of yellow stripes on on a hornet) as being a 'bad' thing.
I think the reason humans tend to believe that they are special stems from human-centric religious beliefs. These beliefs originated in a time where very little was understood about human origins, and the concept of evolution was non-existent. Most of us no longer believe that Earth is the centre of the universe, even after we just assumed it was for thousands of years. Why did we? Human nature, methinks. We evolved to be that arrogant.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
nermski
Stranger
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 170
Loc: South East
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#890454 - 09/18/02 06:17 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
First of all I have to disagree with this post. I believe everything a human does is in some way for itself. For example, doing something nice for someone else. Makes them feel good about THEMSELVES. Second I'd have to agree that Polar Bears don't have the capactiy to dwell on a single thought such as a family member's death. They just do not have the intelligence nor the memory. Next, I do not believe emotion to be an solely for human perpetuation. I believe it to be due to higher intelligence = higher emotion. Hell, humans have already proved this. For example EMOTION is what sometimes turns humans to kill other humans.
Anyways, there's my two pennies.
--------------------
It's better to overdose than to underdose.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: The true nature of man [Re: nermski]
#890907 - 09/18/02 10:14 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not so sure, nermski....
When the locus of selection shifts from genes to memes... I think it is entirely possible for altruism to truly exist.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#891985 - 09/18/02 07:28 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
very good rebuttle cyberchump.........Yes it is true that many different speceis have evovled to have different markings to serve as warning to would be pretators; all this proves is that different species have the ability to learn. This of course is a huge evolutionary advantage (yes I fully believe in evolution). The ability to learn is not what distinguishes us from the rest (IMO). You say that there is no clear, definitive line where this difference occurs......this doesn't negate the difference none the less. Your argument reminds me of those old "Trick Infinity" questions that philosophers and mathematicians used to pose to suckers to hurt their brains, i.e. To get from point A to point B you must go at least half way. To get from point A to that half-way point you need to go at least half way (again). So on and so on. So you can see that this goes on for infinity so how can we ever get from point A to B since we can not walk forever (to infinity).
So because we can't go back in evolutionary time to some point to look for the distinguishing moment and then keep doing this until we find it, your reasoning is that it does not exist. I will agree that we can't see (probably never will) the defining moment where "presto-change-o" we are now different. This is because there were an infinite amount of tiny graduations for mankind to get where we are. So just because the place we are at today is due to a slow, steady progression doesn't mean that we aren't still here. (am I rambling in a nonsensical fashion or are you following me  ) Basically what I am trying to say is that we made it to point B even though the infinite amount of halfway points are difficult to define.
Now....back to topic.....because we have "arrived", I feel that we can make definite "real" definitions on what is right and wrong (not just a human invention for the sake of better living). I do believe in universal truths and unlike many in this forum I believe the ego/ID is something that has fantastic opportunity and ability and shouldn't be shed in the name of looking for enlightenment. Man is basically good eben though we do seem to make huge boo-boos like Nagasaki, Holocaust, slavery, and many more.
Although I believe that egocentricity is good to a point I do believe that we get caught up in it too much and need to learn more compassion and selflessness.
P.S. keep the rebuttle coming this is turning into a very interesting post.
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Xlea321]
#892024 - 09/18/02 07:46 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's more than likely these groups simply died out through lack of successful reproduction.
Both groups suddenly and simultaneously forgot how to insert TAB A into SLOT B?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#892033 - 09/18/02 07:49 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
At the very point when we were able to ask "what is this great distinction..."!
What if early on, we could only ask "What is the great...?", but did not yet have a word for "distinction"?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Swami]
#892091 - 09/18/02 08:10 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Then I guess we would be grabbing pocket change for a vendor that was more highly evolved than us. Damn.....evolution is a bitch isn't it?
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#893330 - 09/19/02 10:29 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You say that there is no clear, definitive line where this difference occurs......this doesn't negate the difference none the less.
I never denied there is a difference; there are many obvious differences However, a particular, *definable* difference between homo sapiens and all other species has not yet been found.
Quote:
Your argument reminds me of those old "Trick Infinity" questions that philosophers and mathematicians used to pose to suckers to hurt their brains, i.e. To get from point A to point B you must go at least half way. To get from point A to that half-way point you need to go at least half way (again). So on and so on. So you can see that this goes on for infinity so how can we ever get from point A to B since we can not walk forever (to infinity).
Eeek... Those paradoxes scare me... but I don't think it's a parallel analogy. The distinction need not necessarily be an indivisable instant in time; it may have taken years, but for there to be a true distinction, it must have occured somewhere in history. My question is what happened during that time. Was it the development of a particular human trait? It doesn't hurt my brain to think about it because I don't insist it ever happened.
Quote:
am I rambling in a nonsensical fashion or are you following me
A quite sensical fashion  ; I follow.
Quote:
definite "real" definitions on what is right and wrong (not just a human invention for the sake of better living). I do believe in universal truths and unlike many in this forum I believe the ego/ID is something that has fantastic opportunity and ability and shouldn't be shed in the name of looking for enlightenment. Man is basically good eben though we do seem to make huge boo-boos like Nagasaki, Holocaust, slavery, and many more.
Why do you consider a human's definition of good "real" and a dolphin's not? I don't think any human has the capability of defining "good" or "bad" in an objective manner. I think each individual's definition of such things is ultimately unique. The 'boo-boos' you mentioned occured because certain people's definition of "good" and "bad" (e.g. Hitler) differed from yours and mine.
I think a complex mind (not unique to humans) will, throughout the course of evolution, inevitably establish schemas for concepts like "good or bad" and we are one of the MANY species that has done so. Even if we were the only species who had reached that point, I still don't think that would be The Distinction because it is only one of many schemas the mind has established.
Anyway I gotta go... let's keep this thread moving; it's a good one. I'd like to hear others' views, too.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#893900 - 09/19/02 03:14 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
why must there be a definite instant in time where we became definably different? If you look at a color chart moving from one color of the rainbow to the next can you really say where one color starts and another ends? None the less these different colors exist even though you can't define where.
Why do you consider a human's definition of good "real" and a dolphin's not?
I consider them both real but they are not transferrable. What is right and wrong for a dolphin is not right and wrong for us. We are different animals thus have different rules. This is why we don't arrest the lion for killing the gazelle lol.
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#894018 - 09/19/02 04:20 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
why must there be a definite instant in time where we became definably different? If you look at a color chart moving from one color of the rainbow to the next can you really say where one color starts and another ends? None the less these different colors exist even though you can't define where.
I will repeat myself:
"The distinction need not necessarily be an indivisible instant in time; it may have taken years, but for there to be a true distinction, it must have occured somewhere in history. My question is what happened during that time. Was it the development of a particular human trait?"
The amount of time it took for us to become different is irrelevant. The point is, since all species currently living on earth ultimately evolved from the same single-celled organism (IOW we had the same starting point), then for The Distinction to exist, something must have happened in our evolutionary process that did not happen in the evolutionary process of any other species. What was it? It doesn't have to be distilled down to an event that made us different; we need not even figure out when it happened; we need only to identify what this defining difference is. I don't believe morality is that difference, because I don't think it is unique to humans. I have explained why I think that previously, but I do it again in a different way below.
Why do you consider a human's definition of good "real" and a dolphin's not?
In reply to:
I consider them both real but they are not transferrable. What is right and wrong for a dolphin is not right and wrong for us. We are different animals thus have different rules.
I agree, but this says nothing about The Distinction you allege. The dolphins may have at some point developed a concept they know as EeEEeEEeE-EEEEeeeEe-EeEe (imagine dolphin sounds) which is just as significant to them as our supposedly unique "right-wrong-good-bad" concept is to us. This means that your assertion is not correct; our ability to tell right from wrong DOES NOT make us special or distinct from other species. What we know as morality is just another example of a mental schema; something NOT UNIQUE to humans.
The question still remains unanswered: what makes humans something distinctly more or different than just more highly evolved chimps?
---------------------------------------------
What does everyone else think? Are humans something distinctly different than other animals? Are we just the most intelligent animal or are we something else?
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
chemkid
Be excellent toeach other
Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#894221 - 09/19/02 05:49 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Let me start off by saying that it is sad we can't get some fresh input from other minds on this interesting debate....anyway, we are doing fine on our own
I see what you are driving at finally (I think). Unfortunately my answer to your question will lead to another age old stalemate (refer to Sclorch's post) the existence Vs. nonexistence of God. In my opinion the great distinction is that when we finally evolved into "rational" people God bestowed souls upon us. This is why there is a set of guidelines that almost seems inate (topic also worthy of debate. Maybe we can start a new thead)
At this particular point in time I hate to give this answer for I fear you will feel I am copping out of the debate, but unfortunately for this debate, in the end my beliefs rest in ideals that can't be proven (in the conventional sense).
Let me pose a question to you: Do you truely feel that we are simply more highly evolved? Don't you just sense that there is something more to us other than evolutionarily lucky bastards? (UHHHH OOOOOOOHH.......many are thinking right now.....this egocentric bastard.......he is so caught up in the same conceited crap that lead us to believe that we were the center of the universe at one time. Sorry guys, but as I stated, the EGO can be a good thing if you're not blinded by it)
--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,506
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
 Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#894964 - 09/20/02 03:54 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
At this particular point in time I hate to give this answer for I fear you will feel I am copping out of the debate, but unfortunately for this debate, in the end my beliefs rest in ideals that can't be proven (in the conventional sense).
You are correct; we have finally reached a stalemate in our game of cosmic mind chess. We definately need more opinions here. I suggest you change the thread title to "The true nature of man - FREE NAKED TITS!"
In reply to:
Let me pose a question to you: Do you truely feel that we are simply more highly evolved? Don't you just sense that there is something more to us other than evolutionarily lucky bastards?
I used to think there was more to us, because that's the common belief, until I really challenged that assumption. We seem different because we are us. We are taught to believe we are different, and we assume no type of spirituality is possible in other species. Since I realized we're all just animals, I have not gone sport fishing once. I can no longer justify it. I still throw rocks at old people though.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
EcoFreako
Non-Threatening
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 122
Loc: BC, CAN.
|
 Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
#896982 - 09/21/02 05:57 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Bravo Cyberchump!...well placed and articulate thoughts...I concur 100% our realities, behaviour, definitions are instinctual...and without learning any of the things that bring us to these simple, but tough, conclusions, man may as well be 1000's of years ago, our timeline is meaningless, state of mind is everything. Dont we need a one book primer in grade school? 1.humans are animals 2 animals have instincts, ect.
The gulf or unhealthy culture belief you stated (man in image of god, uprooting our sense of place in nature), obviously needs to be mended....my thoughts are only addicted to how and in what fashion this would be most efficiently absorbed...these insights, 'new' understandings, big pictures,...incorporated overtop, at least presently, the enormous wave of human instinct-driven information and belief. If some can get the insights of relatedness to all creatures DESPITE propaganda in the other direction, the potential has to be there for masses to subscribe...blah, too stoned to string this meaningfuly, fuck 'history' and 'math' being fed to children.., try psychology, ecology, eco-feminism, anthropology, keys to understand what we are, where we live, why we act the way we do, simple concise full-spectrum models of info delivery, passifism and pot!
Oh theres so much to learn and to unlearn. People please focus on the neccessity of unlearning as important as leaning. Alex, there is plenty of backed up theory that we wiped out neandrethals, swami; I thought we WERE the cromags? No more opposition to the natural world, no more denial of our animal selves, no more closed eyes to the complex, emotive and EVOLVED brother and sister animals, no more driving cars! Watch more nature shows! Go to a bar sober! sorry to foul up the thread  --Ec0
--------------------
Mmmm....permaculture....
|
Albino_Jesus
Clearly Retarded
Registered: 09/14/02
Posts: 1,698
Loc: Construction ahead...
Last seen: 13 years, 4 months
|
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
#897082 - 09/21/02 09:23 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm too lazy to read this whole thread, so I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said before here, but this is my take on things....
man is basically selfish. we are animals, we have basic instincts to survive and reproduce. even altruistic behavior is displayed (maybe not entirely, but certainly in part) not by true selflessness and concern for other people, but the fear of being ostracized by one's community. you can't go around stealing and kicking people around, or you won't get to pass on your genes with some nice girl/boy.
but in extreme situations, altruism and proper behavior play second fiddle to our most basic urges
when the inhabitants of Easter island began overpopulating, overhunting, and overcutting their forest, people began to die off from starvation. what did they do to solve this when it got to the extreme? cannibalism.
when survival becomes urgent, people can turn on each other in the blink of an eye.
--------------------
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.
-Ralph Nader
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Feminized Cannabis Seeds 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Buy Kratom Capsules
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Anonymous
atomikfunksoldier
Ellis Dee
HagbardCeline