Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: The true nature of man [Re: blink]
    #872922 -

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) 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: ]
    #873444 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #873454 -

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #873463 -

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.


--------------------
---

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Amoeba665]
    #873504 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Typingwords]
    #873839 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Swami]
    #873856 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #874030 -

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"

:heartpump:

Edited by CyberChump (09/10/02 06:35 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #882184 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Xlea321]
    #882212 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #882371 -

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"

:heartpump:

Edited by CyberChump (09/13/02 06:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #884821 -

*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"

:heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #889758 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #890273 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #890371 -

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"

:heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #890454 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: nermski]
    #890907 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #891985 -

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 :blush:) 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: Xlea321]
    #892024 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The true nature of man [Re: chemkid]
    #892033 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An interesting ritual...?.....
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 4,715 52 09/10/02 04:15 PM
by buttonion
* What is the true self?
( 1 2 all )		 PsycheStudent 3,020 21 06/13/03 05:48 PM
by castaway
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 7,708 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* hypothosis on the self construction of the S.E.L.F.
( 1 2 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 2,173 21 06/23/03 03:32 AM
by Rhizoid
* Thinking about the nature of God Ellis Dee 2,476 19 03/09/16 06:31 PM
by falcon
* The true purpose of humanity
( 1 2 3 all )		 PsycheStudent 4,879 44 06/19/03 12:59 PM
by c_mathimatics
* Matrix Reloaded True Meaning/ Transcript of Neo/Architect
( 1 2 3 all )		 HagbardCeline 7,739 45 04/17/12 12:47 AM
by Buster_Brown
* The nature of.. nature.
( 1 2 all )		 RedHarvest 4,659 26 10/04/01 07:00 PM
by MrKurtz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,993 topic views. 0 members, 649 guests and 38 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.