What does it mean to be human?

Tyler

10-04-05, 02:57 AM

Don't abuse the term "metaphysical". Metaphysics has nothing to do with love, compassion, et cetera, it has to do with theology, first principles, and ontology.

Nope.

Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues. From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of things (and how many of each) exist. But Kant argued that this task is impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of our thought about the world. Strawson calls the former activity revisionary, and the latter descriptive, metaphysics.

^From the Philosophical Dictionary

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy responsible for the study of existence. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question "What is?" It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.

All in all, metaphysics essentially has to do with what the word says - that which isn't physical. Actually, I'm (luckily) attending a conference called Feeling and Emotion in New York soon - hosted by the Metaphysics group at NYU. Personally, I hate the subject. In my opinion (and this shouldn't be debated in this thread, if you care to argue pm me or start another thread) metaphysics is a bunch of hooey. It may be interesting, but not in the sense that philosophy is. I truly believe areas like metaphysics and existentialist philosophy et al should have a different name, because it ain't philosophy in the sense that the other half is.

Regardless, yes I slander the term metaphysics. I despise it, as I said, and I really believe the arguements in it aren't arguements. But! Arguements about the role of compassion and love are metaphysical arguements. They're weird ones, and ones rarely touched on by famous philosophers (though, with some very notable exceptions - Nietzsche for one), but still metaphysical.

Tyler

10-04-05, 02:58 AM

first principles

Don't abuse the term first principles. It has to do with so much more than theology and metaphysics. It's benefit and beauty is seen in far better places.

Prince_James

10-04-05, 03:22 AM

water:

I'm making statements.

What sort?

Good. It's not gone, you know, so you needn't use past tense.

Good.

I'd love to, but my time on MSN is scarce lately.

Well, if you do get on, give me a ring!

But how can you prove any of the above?

Humans have the genetic propensity towards the development of intellect rooted in the most advanced brain of any creature on the planet, therefore, even those with the incapacity to have developed their brain fully, or have had their development arrested via accident, still had that capacity to great intellect, and thus remain a human.

LightEagle:

The answer to this question depends on your point of view. Atheists will argue that we are just a "pot of chemicals" and that this question belongs under the science section. Theists, such as I, will argue that we are created in the image of a benevolent Creator and that we have the ability, unlike the other Anamalia, to love and hope. This, of course, will also depend on your definition of love and hope, but I think that we love and hope much different for example than a dog or cat.

How do we love and hope differently from a dog and cat? And what reason do you have to believe we were created in the image of a benevolent Creator?

Tyler:

“ Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues. From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of things (and how many of each) exist. But Kant argued that this task is impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of our thought about the world. Strawson calls the former activity revisionary, and the latter descriptive, metaphysics.
”

^From the Philosophical Dictionary

This is accurate, since most of those deal with ontology, which is a subdivision of metaphysics.

“ Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy responsible for the study of existence. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question "What is?" It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.
”

Rather accurate, yes.

All in all, metaphysics essentially has to do with what the word says - that which isn't physical. Actually, I'm (luckily) attending a conference called Feeling and Emotion in New York soon - hosted by the Metaphysics group at NYU. Personally, I hate the subject. In my opinion (and this shouldn't be debated in this thread, if you care to argue pm me or start another thread) metaphysics is a bunch of hooey. It may be interesting, but not in the sense that philosophy is. I truly believe areas like metaphysics and existentialist philosophy et al should have a different name, because it ain't philosophy in the sense that the other half is.

Feeling and emotion have nothing to do with metaphysics, at best, they fit into Philosophy of the Mind or Aesthetics. Moreover, metaphysics does not mean "that which isn't physical", but litterally translates to "after physics" as it was the title of a work of Aristotle that came after his work Physics, hence, Metaphysics.

And since I live in NY, where is this being hosted and is it free?

Regardless, yes I slander the term metaphysics. I despise it, as I said, and I really believe the arguements in it aren't arguements. But! Arguements about the role of compassion and love are metaphysical arguements. They're weird ones, and ones rarely touched on by famous philosophers (though, with some very notable exceptions - Nietzsche for one), but still metaphysical.

This is an abuse, again, of the term metaphysics. The things which ignorant idiots ascribe to metaphysics in the last fifty some years, are inaccurate. Metaphysics has come to mean "mystical", which is completely incorrect. I'll discuss this in a thread.

Don't abuse the term first principles. It has to do with so much more than theology and metaphysics. It's benefit and beauty is seen in far better places.

The Metaphysics was divided into three parts, now regarded as the traditional branches of Western metaphysics, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science. There were also some smaller, perhaps tangential matters: a philosophical lexicon, an attempt to define philosophy in general, and several extracts from the Physics repeated verbatim.

Ontology is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as 'the science of being qua being'.
Theology means, here, the study of God or the gods and of questions about the divine.
Universal science is supposed to be the study of so-called first principles, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the law of non-contradiction: A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, and in the same respect. A particular apple cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be all red and all green at the same time. Universal science or first philosophy treats of "being qua being" — that is, what is basic to all science before one adds the particular details of any one science. This includes matters like causality, substance, species, and elements.

- Wikipedia.

Here, let's go to that thread with this.

duendy

10-04-05, 03:27 AM

human.........emotions feelings intellect

I N T E L L E C T ...has been raised as a god....and E M O T I O N S denigrated asbelonging to the animal body which mr intellect identifies with WOMAN and NATURE

you can tell when a human has fallen into the worship-the-intellect-trap. their views and actions lack feeling

Prince_James

10-04-05, 03:36 AM

Duendy:

I N T E L L E C T ...has been raised as a god....and E M O T I O N S denigrated asbelonging to the animal body which mr intellect identifies with WOMAN and NATURE

you can tell when a human has fallen into the worship-the-intellect-trap. their views and actions lack feeling

And why ought we not raise intellect to the status of Godhood? It is the master of all creation, stretching its power across infinity, plumbing the depths of what would be blind existence, meaningless to all. Emotions are simply reactions to things, which when improperly trained, lead one astray from a proper path. But whilst I would argue women are emotional, I would not argue nature is. Nature is supremely intellectual, if one can equate intellctual with ordered and precise, which nature certainly is.

And why ought actions have feeling?

Quantum Quack

10-04-05, 05:36 AM

what is it to be human?

A bit like:
Being a human and acting as a human, or
being intelligence and acting with intelligence.

Being human is distinct to acting human as it is with intelligence.

Prince I can not agree with the proposition that intellect is the main criteria for being human.

So often when we use the word human in discussion it is a self depreciation such as "well I am only human after all" this negative appreciation is to say that being human means we are limited. That we have failings, that we are far from perfect.

So this must also be a part of what it is to be human. That we can know our limitations and apprecate our shortcomings. Possibly this can fall with in the realm of intelligence in fact I am sure it can be made to fit if we want to but I am not convinced that intellect is a thorough enough decription as an answer to the question. Intellect is of course emotionally premised as well and being human can be deemed to be more about feelings and awareness than just intellect. Not to mention instinct and intuition.

BTW Water, a very good and possibly unanswerable question....or maybe the answer is simply:

42

Tavas

10-04-05, 06:54 AM

What does it mean to be a rock?

To make any judgement from self is immedately flawed and bias.

So the answer to your question might is plain and stupid-looking,

"Go ask the rock" :eek:

duendy

10-04-05, 08:42 AM

Duendy:

And why ought we not raise intellect to the status of Godhood?

me::: because it breeds evil; it is Luciferian philosophy which is what the Illuminati is all about. Yhis what they believe. tat --in their myth 'intellect' is be all and end all, and thus thewy are 'gods'--ie., the ones wid the intellect. then they look down on all that isn'r what their silly intellects tell the is use-less. to IDENTIFY with silly-cutoff-intellect is the hieght of ignore-ance

It is the master of all creation, stretching its power across infinity, plumbing the depths of what would be blind existence, meaningless to all.

me::: haha...who ays? let me give a clue. the ones who have identified WITH thewir silly idea of intellect is who. it probably originated in a patriarchal way of looking at the heavenes/stella activity, and assuming that it was staic and ordered and there must be a super-intellect BEHIND it. then they identify WITH that stupid idea, and hey presto their belief self-loops and they transmit this rubbish via their written down dogma

Emotions are simply reactions to things, which when improperly trained, lead one astray from a proper path.

me::: emotions came first.....before the self-conscious intellect. all animals feel emotion. it is natrual. when we cry we cry cause we feel sad. it is not re-action, but action

But whilst I would argue women are emotional, I would not argue nature is.

me:::oh god. SEE?? you have just slagged off emotion ..and then have the audacity to twin women wid it. not meeeen of course OHHHH no. And you dont know your religion. it always twinswomen wit Nature. for Women give birth. that was their reasoning anyhow. you must be a heretic hah. yet still deluded. oh well

Nature is supremely intellectual, if one can equate intellctual with ordered and precise, which nature certainly is.

me::: so whence comethe the poblem of 'evil ooops i mean 'emotion' then, IF NAture is as 'intellectua' as you err say?

And why ought actions have feeling?

you seriously ask that?....amazin

Perfect

10-04-05, 11:15 AM

How deep and profound.. let's see..

Life, is like a cucumber: today it's in your salad, the next day it's up your ass.

That pretty much sums it up.
End of discussion

*bows*

water

10-04-05, 12:35 PM

Light,

No, not in the least. I stated my reason quite clearly - I do not desire to engage in endless debate. That has absoultely nothing to do with any form of prejudice. How in the heck could you draw that conclusion?

I presume that you are a rational agent, and have rational justifications for your stance. This desire that you have, to not engage in endless debate, it is based on some insight, is it not? You must have some grounds upon which you assess that the debate would be endless. It is these grounds that I am asking you to state.

* * *

LightEagle,

The answer to this question depends on your point of view. Atheists will argue that we are just a "pot of chemicals" and that this question belongs under the science section. Theists, such as I, will argue that we are created in the image of a benevolent Creator and that we have the ability, unlike the other Anamalia, to love and hope.

I wouldn't dare claim that, as I have no way of proving whether we have that ability.

For example, I can ask myself, "Do I love and hope right now?" and I couldn't say that I do.

How do you suggest that this ability be identified and tested?

This, of course, will also depend on your definition of love and hope, but I think that we love and hope much different for example than a dog or cat.

I have spent more than 20 intese years with cats, and dogs too. I do not presume for a second to know how they love and hope, so I couldn't make comparisons between cats or dogs and humans.

* * *

Anomalous,

the sole purpose of being a human is

to prove that I am the best to be reproduced with

Not if you are anomalous. :p

Or maybe, this nomen-est-omen thingy has a purpose: a man has to have some "anomaly" that makes his special and more deserving than other men, so that the woman will choose him.

* * *

Tyler,

All in all, metaphysics essentially has to do with what the word says - that which isn't physical.

*khm*

You better freshen up the etymology of the word "metaphysics". In Aristotle's writings, those writings about what was later called "metaphysics", were placed AFTER the writings about physics. In Greek, they are called "ta meta ta physika". It is for sheer practicality that the term "metaphysics" was coined, and doesn't actually refer to 'that which is not physical'. It was later, when people forgot the original motivation, that metaphysics started to mean things beyond the physical.

* * *

Prince_James,

“ I'm making statements. ”

What sort?

Look closely and you'll see!

Well, if you do get on, give me a ring!

Will do. Thank you!

* * *

Humans have the genetic propensity towards the development of intellect rooted in the most advanced brain of any creature on the planet, therefore, even those with the incapacity to have developed their brain fully, or have had their development arrested via accident, still had that capacity to great intellect, and thus remain a human.

In which case, you count mere potentiality to suffice for a being to be considered human?

This is an abuse, again, of the term metaphysics. The things which ignorant idiots ascribe to metaphysics in the last fifty some years, are inaccurate. Metaphysics has come to mean "mystical", which is completely incorrect. I'll discuss this in a thread.

Good!

* * *

duendy,

human.........emotions feelings intellect

I N T E L L E C T ...has been raised as a god....and E M O T I O N S denigrated asbelonging to the animal body which mr intellect identifies with WOMAN and NATURE

you can tell when a human has fallen into the worship-the-intellect-trap. their views and actions lack feeling

I actually agree with you!

* * *

Prince_James,

And why ought we not raise intellect to the status of Godhood?

Well, if we are to be rational agents and that, then, if we want to be true to what we are proporsing to be, we better have some good justification for raising the intellect to the status of Godhood.
I'm rather lost as to what the satisfactory justification would be for such a pursuit.

It is the master of all creation, stretching its power across infinity, plumbing the depths of what would be blind existence, meaningless to all.

Know what? At some earlier time, what I'd comment to the above would be "Ah, the presumptiousness of the human mind knows no limits", but now I actually agree with what you are saying. Only that the products of the mind are all -ilusions-.

But whilst I would argue women are emotional, I would not argue nature is.

Oooh. Aaah. Eh.

* * *

Quantum Quack,

A bit like:
Being a human and acting as a human, or
being intelligence and acting with intelligence.

Being human is distinct to acting human as it is with intelligence.

Prince I can not agree with the proposition that intellect is the main criteria for being human.

So often when we use the word human in discussion it is a self depreciation such as "well I am only human after all" this negative appreciation is to say that being human means we are limited. That we have failings, that we are far from perfect.

So this must also be a part of what it is to be human. That we can know our limitations and apprecate our shortcomings. Possibly this can fall with in the realm of intelligence in fact I am sure it can be made to fit if we want to but I am not convinced that intellect is a thorough enough decription as an answer to the question. Intellect is of course emotionally premised as well and being human can be deemed to be more about feelings and awareness than just intellect. Not to mention instinct and intuition.

Okay. So, every day, humans use the word "human", quite often, the law uses it etc. But what do they actually mean by this word?

BTW Water, a very good and possibly unanswerable question....or maybe the answer is simply:

42

Are we to write "42" into the Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights?

* * *

duendy,

And why ought actions have feeling?

you seriously ask that?....amazin

Set your outrage aside, and answer the question. Prince and I are just being thorough.

duendy

10-04-05, 05:03 PM

true....but i wasn't outraged just bemused....didn't mean to be patronizing

...
why ought actions need feelings?

action IS life IS consciousness......i believe matter-energy is informed by feeling which is onsciousness

tis doesn't mean that there is this 'stuff' called 'matter' with some other 'superior stuff' called 'consciousness' workin it like a glove puppet. no

therer is no separation between matter-energy and consciousness, yet a distinction

what inlecct does when it identifies with itself--tho that may be a clumsy way to put it. whe MINDSET arises due to free will--ie we can be as eviiii; as we damn well wish, but of course it has consequencews---as is the case with intellectual dominance over bodsy and Nature, then action becomes divided and hence a question like Prince asked will arise. because the same intellect builds the samelanguage that gives an illusiion of abstracted reality.....this is why some people cxan be very aCtive and YET be just oike robots. numb to feeling because of psychological atrophy due to brainbashing by an intellectual-deifying dogma. not just from myth, philosophy, religin, but science also

Quantum Quack

10-04-05, 07:26 PM

A thought occurred in reading your responses Water, that may add complexity if anything, to this question.

It could be contended that this question is impossible to answer with out a relative form of life that is very similar to what we are. On this planet for example we have monkeys and gorillas all very similar to us humans but not similar enough. We are human because we are not a monkey or a fish or a gorilla.

Say for example we extend the question to :
What is it to be humanoid?
Now usually when we use this word we immediately think of the possibility of extra terrestrial life forms that conform to the basic design of the human form. 2 legs 2 arms torso and head and other similar organs etc.

However could an extra terrestrial humanoid ever be claimed to be human no matter how similar he /she is?

So does part of the definition require the need to include birth place ie. Earth?
So are we implying in our question and answers a possible existence of other extraterrestrial races?

So if we stand two humanoids next to each other and note that they appear externally to be identicle in just about every way in form, does one have the ability to determine their human- ness.

I must admit the point I am attempting to promote here is extremely hard to put forward and needs considerably more thought than I can afford to give it.

I do ask however as a start to the line of enquiry whether being human requires and earthly birth?

Or could similar entities that for all intents and purposes appear to be human even down to genome, that are not born of this planet be considered as human?

A bit like asking what is it to be American or Swiss, or German, or Italian, or even an Australian Aboriginal. These are however a subset of humanity where as humanity may only be a subset of universal humanoid existance.

devils_reject

10-04-05, 08:47 PM

What is being human? Of cause there is the ridiculous and moral, there is the situational and then there is the logic to ponder. I think being human is a puzzle of emotion, a challenge itself for each and everyone of us. It’s almost like the heavens opened their eye the moment we opened ours for the first time. We may not be the most beautiful but we are up there with the boldest. Each and every one of us must have their own definition otherwise why the hell do I even wasting my time at the moment. It’s situational to understand but it is almost free to be human. Too free, maybe that’s the reason we have defecated and urinated on the earth like the scum of the galaxy. The earth had it coming for allowing us to come this far down the circus due soles of evolution. You can never know a real human; you can feel its finger print and swirl of lies and trusts, in fact if you pay attention long enough you can almost feel the heart beating like its about to smash like a mere tomato. But the truth is that the heart has no real way yet of expressing itself, otherwise we would also know the meaning of life by now. Destiny is like luck, it is going to happen whether you like it or not, so lucky you planet earth. And persevere till the last heart beat knocks, and knocks, and knocks, and fades into a million echoes. Like every grape has its last day in a vineyard, all I really want is that we are tasted remembered.

Prince_James

10-04-05, 11:00 PM

duendy:

me::: because it breeds evil; it is Luciferian philosophy which is what the Illuminati is all about. Yhis what they believe. tat --in their myth 'intellect' is be all and end all, and thus thewy are 'gods'--ie., the ones wid the intellect. then they look down on all that isn'r what their silly intellects tell the is use-less. to IDENTIFY with silly-cutoff-intellect is the hieght of ignore-ance

Okay, Gary Busey. First off, define evil. Second off, you do know that Lucifer does not exist, yes? There is no being that goes by the name "Lucifer" in the traditional sense. Thirdly, the Illuminati doesn't exist.

me::: haha...who ays? let me give a clue. the ones who have identified WITH thewir silly idea of intellect is who. it probably originated in a patriarchal way of looking at the heavenes/stella activity, and assuming that it was staic and ordered and there must be a super-intellect BEHIND it. then they identify WITH that stupid idea, and hey presto their belief self-loops and they transmit this rubbish via their written down dogma

Who says? A world without intellect, by default, is meaningless. Meaning only develops out of intellect.

me::: emotions came first.....before the self-conscious intellect. all animals feel emotion. it is natrual. when we cry we cry cause we feel sad. it is not re-action, but action

Emotions can only arise in reaction to something else. When someone close to one dies, one is often sad. Is not this a reaction to death? Moreover, consciousness, having developed alongside sense, surely came before emotions, as emotions require a complex system of chemical interactions to feel, which are not found in bacterium and other microscopic conscious lifeforms.

me::h god. SEE?? you have just slagged off emotion ..and then have the audacity to twin women wid it. not meeeen of course OHHHH no. And you dont know your religion. it always twinswomen wit Nature. for Women give birth. that was their reasoning anyhow. you must be a heretic hah. yet still deluded. oh well

I don't have a religion. But yes, women are more "Earthly" as traditionally been asserted.

me::: so whence comethe the poblem of 'evil ooops i mean 'emotion' then, IF NAture is as 'intellectua' as you err say?

Emotion derives from chemical processes in highly developed brains and is naturally selected for as it can aid in survival. There is nothing "disordered" about emotions as regards that. What is ridiculous is relying on emotions when the intellect is far supreme and not based on something subrational.

you seriously ask that?....amazin

Yes. For reason is far better than feeling.

Water:

In which case, you count mere potentiality to suffice for a being to be considered human?

Yes.

Well, if we are to be rational agents and that, then, if we want to be true to what we are proporsing to be, we better have some good justification for raising the intellect to the status of Godhood.
I'm rather lost as to what the satisfactory justification would be for such a pursuit.

The intellect can do everything. It can find the very secrets of nature, of being, of mind. It is the closest thing to a God in existence.

Know what? At some earlier time, what I'd comment to the above would be "Ah, the presumptiousness of the human mind knows no limits", but now I actually agree with what you are saying. Only that the products of the mind are all -ilusions-.

In what way are they illusionary?

Quantum Quack:

Prince I can not agree with the proposition that intellect is the main criteria for being human.

So often when we use the word human in discussion it is a self depreciation such as "well I am only human after all" this negative appreciation is to say that being human means we are limited. That we have failings, that we are far from perfect.

Good! Debate! It's been a while since we've intellectually battled to find the truth.

The term "it is only human", it is a term rooted in a slave mentality and based on the desire for mediocrity and fear of perfection which chiefly characterizes said slaves. By being chiefly of the intellect, humanity is -not- bounded by its "limitations" at all. In fact, the road to perfection is clearly an easy road to trod for the human, as he has control of the most powerful force that inhabits the universe, the aforementioned intellect.

So this must also be a part of what it is to be human. That we can know our limitations and apprecate our shortcomings. Possibly this can fall with in the realm of intelligence in fact I am sure it can be made to fit if we want to but I am not convinced that intellect is a thorough enough decription as an answer to the question. Intellect is of course emotionally premised as well and being human can be deemed to be more about feelings and awareness than just intellect. Not to mention instinct and intuition. ”

Whilst we might have those things, we are chiefly "the thinking animal". We are Homo sapiens, the wise man, for a reason.

duendy:

action IS life IS consciousness......i believe matter-energy is informed by feeling which is onsciousness

Formed by feeling? Feeling can only exist when energy and matter are present. One cannot feel nothingness. Moreover, what foundation do you have for this?

what inlecct does when it identifies with itself--tho that may be a clumsy way to put it. whe MINDSET arises due to free will--ie we can be as eviiii; as we damn well wish, but of course it has consequencews---as is the case with intellectual dominance over bodsy and Nature, then action becomes divided and hence a question like Prince asked will arise. because the same intellect builds the samelanguage that gives an illusiion of abstracted reality.....this is why some people cxan be very aCtive and YET be just oike robots. numb to feeling because of psychological atrophy due to brainbashing by an intellectual-deifying dogma. not just from myth, philosophy, religin, but science also

And why ought one have emotions at all? They have no inherent value.

beyondtimeandspace

10-05-05, 12:04 AM

My mere two cents which I do not wish to debate. I am merely stating my opinion:

A human is a body/soul union. All those biological and genetic distinctions which identify the human specie from other animal species are the physical attributes that make up humanity, and the capacity for intellect, free will, the ability to love, the ability to recognize beauty, immortality (and a few others) are the attributes which are found in the human soul. It is not merely one or the other of these two parts that make humans human, but the unity and oneness of the parts, indistinguishable, which makes the distinct specie of the human.

Onefinity

10-05-05, 01:33 AM

Why is this in philosophy? It's a science question to be answered by science people. Unless you're asking what metaphysical attributes humans possess that other creatures don't. In which case, you're just going to get a lot of silly people saying "compassion, heart, love, understanding...." and even sillier people replying with "ah, but what does love mean!"

But these are the things that people care about most.

Onefinity

10-05-05, 01:38 AM

Who says? A world without intellect, by default, is meaningless. Meaning only develops out of intellect.

James, how old are you?

Onefinity

10-05-05, 02:04 AM

What does it mean to be human?

Define "human".

Is it just the organism biologically being referred to as Homo sapiens?

I think that to be human...
is to to objectify,
is to be aware of one's mortality, and
is to be able to transcend.

Now for the longer answer:

In my five-dimension model of cosmic evolution, I place humans as representative of what I call the Countersubjective dimension. The other four are the Subjective (all forms in general), the Intersubjective (living things in general), the Transsubjective (conscious awareness of and participation in evolution), and the Intrasubjective (cosmos as One-and-Many). By "Countersubjective," I am referring to the human quality of living within constructs and tendency to objectify self and other - a double-edge sword for sure. I see, however, the Transsubjective dimension as having already come into view...if we can survive long enough to realize it and make a shift.

LightEagle

10-05-05, 04:47 AM

How do we love and hope differently from a dog and cat? And what reason do you have to believe we were created in the image of a benevolent Creator?

Do you think a dog or cat hopes? The basic definition of hope is to believe in something unseen. It accompanies a choice. An example would be a crisis one goes through in a relationship with the accompanying belief that the situation will improve in the future even though it may not seem that way. A dog or cat is driven by its desires. A human being has the choice not to be governed by desires and impulses.

I wouldn't dare claim that, as I have no way of proving whether we have that ability.

For example, I can ask myself, "Do I love and hope right now?" and I couldn't say that I do.

How do you suggest that this ability be identified and tested?

The fact that you as an individual cannot ask that question does not imply that it is not true for the majority. Your inability to answer the question may also be purely ascribed to present circumstances. I can ask myself if I hope and love and my answer would be a most definate "yes!" As I have mentioned above, we have the ability to choose. It can be tested based on the fact that we hope that things will be better and that there are answers to our questions, because of the fact that we keep on living. If you argue that we live because we are biolocically "programmed" to, then how do you justify the thousands of suicides each year? How do you explain someone taking his/her life, because he/she has lost hope, i.e. the belief that a given situation will improve. In addition we continually strive to better ourselves in stead of leaving it to the natural processes of evolution. Just take our technmological advances as an example and our paradigm shifts due to the proliferation of science.

I have spent more than 20 intese years with cats, and dogs too. I do not presume for a second to know how they love and hope, so I couldn't make comparisons between cats or dogs and humans.

The question is not whether they love and/or hope, but rather if they DO love and/or hope. The next question would be whether they can CHOOSE to love and/or hope. Can they choose in spite of desires of impulses? Does your dog/cat "love" you because he/she chooses to? What would happen if you don't feed it for a few months?

Light

10-05-05, 05:07 AM

The question is not whether they love and/or hope, but rather if they DO love and/or hope. The next question would be whether they can CHOOSE to love and/or hope. Can they choose in spite of desires of impulses? Does your dog/cat "love" you because he/she chooses to? What would happen if you don't feed it for a few months?

A little off the topic here, but I would like to inject something.

It's not so obvious in some animals, cats, for example, but dogs clearly have many of the emotions that humans do - including hope. They desire attention and praise (and by default, acceptance), express affection, happiness, anger and hurt feelings. They clearly hope for attention and to be played with and will try a number of things in an effort to make those hopes realities.

PavelB

10-05-05, 06:07 AM

Human?

The ability to control our sexual urges. ;)

duendy

10-05-05, 06:08 AM

duendy:

Okay, Gary Busey.

me::who is he?

First off, define evil.

me:::it isa human concept abstracted from a wholistic process. for example, isa crocodile attacking and eating a young child evil, or is it naturally hungry? contrast that with a human who seeks the little girsl to use and abuse for his/her pleasure. surely the latter is evil, and grows DUE to a divided consciousnss which hasLOST FEELING.

Second off, you do know that Lucifer does not exist,

me:::byunderstanding the originary meaning of the term 'Lucifer' which means 'Venus'. so yes, Venus exists, butas for te mythical charactr concocted by tat Luciferian and Christian belief, no. except in teir heads.

yes? There is no being that goes by the name "Lucifer" in the traditional sense. Thirdly, the Illuminati doesn't exist.

me:::how do YOU know that?

Who says? A world without intellect, by default, is meaningless. Meaning only develops out of intellect.

me:::i am not ANTI intellect. i am anti intellect assuming it islordin over everything

Emotions can only arise in reaction to something else. When someone close to one dies, one is often sad. Is not this a reaction to death?

me:::tat is te intellect disseacting natrual process in a linear way--which is what overly intellectual observation will do. rather action is not re-action when it is not divided from itself. so example, whe i am sad, there is the action of sadness. its not re-action obviously

Moreover, consciousness, having developed alongside sense, surely came before emotions, as emotions require a complex system of chemical interactions to feel, which are not found in bacterium and other microscopic conscious lifeforms.

me:::we are ot talkin bacteriums, but humans. and of course emotions precede intellect. yu can see tis in te history of mythology in the west. there was the viseral ecstatic emotional rituals of classical Dionysiansm which then became reformed by the philosophical/intellectual Orphics who were the first to WRITE down teir DUALSTIC dogma. they belieed they were divine spirits trapped in Nature/body/emotions/matter....!
when we are born, we ont come out of mamas womb intellectualizing, but cryin!

I don't have a religion. But yes, women are more "Earthly" as traditionally been asserted.

me:::bit of a generalization

Emotion derives from chemical processes in highly developed brains and is naturally selected for as it can aid in survival.

me:::hmmmmm that way of putting it sounds typically reductionist and darwinist. i would say rather....we are human and FEEL. someofus anyhow

There is nothing "disordered" about emotions as regards that. What is ridiculous is relying on emotions when the intellect is far supreme and not based on something subrational.

me:::there you go again wit your supreme intellect. yes te intellect is prt of our pocess. but to intellectualiz it as being the 'god' is absurd, and very dangerous too. rather see that intellect--as it can do--compartmentalizes eality....cuts it up, and ten places itself top pf the tree. how silly is the intellectual-obsessed-with-itself-mind? VERY

Yes. For reason is far better than feeling.

me:::in your intellectual bible, no doubt.

Water:

Yes.

The intellect can do everything. It can find the very secrets of nature, of being, of mind. It is the closest thing to a God in existence.

me:::find the very ecrets of Nature...my arse

In what way are they illusionary?

Quantum Quack:

Good! Debate! It's been a while since we've intellectually battled to find the truth.

The term "it is only human", it is a term rooted in a slave mentality and based on the desire for mediocrity and fear of perfection which chiefly characterizes said slaves. By being chiefly of the intellect, humanity is -not- bounded by its "limitations" at all. In fact, the road to perfection is clearly an easy road to trod for the human, as he has control of the most powerful force that inhabits the universe, the aforementioned intellect.

Whilst we might have those things, we are chiefly "the thinking animal". We are Homo sapiens, the wise man, for a reason.

duendy:

Formed by feeling? Feeling can only exist when energy and matter are present. One cannot feel nothingness. Moreover, what foundation do you have for this?

me:::chekout Christian de Quincey, who goes into about all this in much depth. i ca resonate it wit it because of psychedelic experience, and insights from oter tings and stuff i have read.........the current mind/body problem in science which is a continuation of a long long patriarchal insistence of a dality between 'spirit' and 'Nature',,,,,seem to have come up against impasse. de Quincey really spaks the obvious....someting ancient people knew. that spirit and matter were NVER really separate to begin with. end of 'problem'!...its the way yer ask questions...

And why ought one have emotions at all? They have no inherent value.

which means you hate humanity and being human. why no be Dr Spock then...heh.

becauuuuse, dude, FEELING is being HUUUUMAN, and animals feel too, and insects, etc

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 07:29 AM

duendy, if both humans and animals feel, then feeling is not the definition of a human. what is it that separates us from animals? it is the conscious thinking of course. so we could say that a human is a creature which possesses all the qualities of animals, plants and matter, but also a new ability: consicous thinking, sense of self.

also, lucifer does exist, but maybe not in the way you think.

duendy

10-05-05, 08:52 AM

duendy, if both humans and animals feel, then feeling is not the definition of a human.

me:::how so? we very much DO feel. we are one of the most sensitive of creatures, no?

what is it that separates us from animals? it is the conscious thinking of course.

me:::why do we presume only we consciously think? not too long ago, and still in some cases, animals were believed to be merely atomatons, and much evel has been done to millions of them due to tat HUMAN concept!
So be careful what you assume.

so we could say that a human is a creature which possesses all the qualities of animals, plants and matter, but also a new ability: consicous thinking, sense of self.

me:::you might. i dont

also, lucifer does exist, but maybe not in the way you think.

like i siad. IF you want to explore mythical terms, go to te etymological roots of the term if you can. that tells you its original meaning. if some ignorant people from tere want to make a comic book character out of their misubnderstanding, i will also explore that, but not be taken in by it. just as well when we learn what they can get up to believin what tey do......!you probably dont know the half

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 09:50 AM

me:::how so? we very much DO feel. we are one of the most sensitive of creatures, no?

That's what I said.

So be careful what you assume.

Why should I be careful?

Almost no animal can recognize themselves in a mirror. They are not conscious of themselves.

Onefinity

10-05-05, 10:10 AM

Almost no animal can recognize themselves in a mirror. They are not conscious of themselves.

Well, what do you mean by "conscious of themselves"? They are certainly conscious of being. Perhaps we could flesh out "conscious of self" more. I think that means maintaining an image of self that is related to but apart from being. Capacity to self-objectify.

water

10-05-05, 10:11 AM

LightEagle,

Do you think a dog or cat hopes? The basic definition of hope is to believe in something unseen. It accompanies a choice. An example would be a crisis one goes through in a relationship with the accompanying belief that the situation will improve in the future even though it may not seem that way. A dog or cat is driven by its desires. A human being has the choice not to be governed by desires and impulses.

Have you ever had a cat or a dog?

I wouldn't dare claim that, as I have no way of proving whether we have that ability.

For example, I can ask myself, "Do I love and hope right now?" and I couldn't say that I do.

How do you suggest that this ability be identified and tested?

The fact that you as an individual cannot ask that question does not imply that it is not true for the majority.

So what if it is true for the majority?

Your inability to answer the question may also be purely ascribed to present circumstances. I can ask myself if I hope and love and my answer would be a most definate "yes!"

Read again what I said:
For example, I can ask myself, "Do I love and hope right now?" and I couldn't say that I do.

Are you perfect? Do you claim that you love and hope 24/7?
I didn't ask *whether* I love and hope *at all*, but whether I love and hope *right now*.
How many hours a day do you love and hope? I mean, truly love and hope? 3? 5? 8? Do you love and hope in your sleep?

As I have mentioned above, we have the ability to choose. It can be tested based on the fact that we hope that things will be better and that there are answers to our questions, because of the fact that we keep on living.

Humans can also keep on living in ignorance, or a coma. Terri Schiavo did it for a long time. The coma can also be of a spiritual nature.
The "fact that we keep living" doesn't prove much about our ability to choose.

If you argue that we live because we are biolocically "programmed" to, then how do you justify the thousands of suicides each year? How do you explain someone taking his/her life, because he/she has lost hope, i.e. the belief that a given situation will improve.

Now that you put it this way ... do you know the argument that to the person about to commit suicide, suicide is the most rational option?

In addition we continually strive to better ourselves in stead of leaving it to the natural processes of evolution. Just take our technmological advances as an example and our paradigm shifts due to the proliferation of science.

"Technological advances" are yet another aspect of evolution.
I think it is erroneous to think that wanting to improve oneself (in whatever way) is extraneous to evolution.

The question is not whether they love and/or hope, but rather if they DO love and/or hope.

?
You've asked the same question twice, treating it as if it were two different questions.

The next question would be whether they can CHOOSE to love and/or hope. Can they choose in spite of desires of impulses? Does your dog/cat "love" you because he/she chooses to? What would happen if you don't feed it for a few months?

What are you trying to prove with this whole cat/dog argument?
That humans are in some way superior to animals, or at least sufficiently different?
Be clear and exact.

* * *

PavelB,

The ability to control our sexual urges.

So? What makes you think animals don't "control" their sexual urges? It's not like they screw around 24/7.
Objectively speaking, there is no difference between how animals "control" their sexual urges, and how humans do it. When they get on to having sex, they get on to it, it's the same in humans as it is in animals. Both humans and animals are choosy of their sex partners; both animals and humans sometimes end up not having sex even though they showed a desire to do it.

* * *

duendy,

me:::how so? we very much DO feel. we are one of the most sensitive of creatures, no?

We might be one of the most "sensitive" creatures, but we are not the *only* "sensitive" creatures; and so since sensitivity is not specific only for humans, sensitivity cannot be used as a criterium for what distingusihes and animal from a human.

me:::why do we presume only we consciously think? not too long ago, and still in some cases, animals were believed to be merely atomatons, and much evel has been done to millions of them due to tat HUMAN concept!

What do you think constitutes a clear differentiation between animals and humans?

water

10-05-05, 10:15 AM

Almost no animal can recognize themselves in a mirror. They are not conscious of themselves.

The mirror test proves nothing about recognition of identity in animals. This test assumes that animals recognize themselves THE SAME WAY humans do, primarily by vision. But this is only an assumption, unprovable.

Watch a cat upon approaching a mirror: the first thing she does is look into the mirror, and smell it. And since it doesn't smell, at least not like a living being, the cat turns away. Smell seems to be more important for the cat to establish identity than vision.

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 10:17 AM

Well, what do you mean by "conscious of themselves"? They are certainly conscious of being. Perhaps we could flesh out "conscious of self" more. I think that means maintaining an image of self that is related to but apart from being. Capacity to self-objectify.

Animals are not conscious of their body. If they were, they would be ashamed of being "naked". Adam and Eve ate the fruit (they became conscious), and they saw that they were naked, so they were ashamed. God made clothes of "skin" (the body) for them.

water

10-05-05, 10:19 AM

water

10-05-05, 10:23 AM

In what way are they illusionary?

In that they are just thoughts.

duendy

10-05-05, 11:02 AM

That's what I said.

Why should I be careful?

Almost no animal can recognize themselves in a mirror. They are not conscious of themselves.
which is SELF-consciousness isn't it?

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 11:03 AM

?
Are animals souls without bodies?

Um, no.. that was probably a bit out of place.

When Adam fell into a deep sleep, that is when he lost his divine state of consciousness (rest), he became an unaware living being, separated from the negative pole, the female principle. The mind dressed into material clothes. bodies which can only reveal one gender. Adam and Eve imagined that they were a man and a woman, and forgot that they are the mind, and the mind is the whole.

Animals are unable to sin. They have no karma. They are not yet separated from God. They are controlled by God.

duendy

10-05-05, 11:29 AM

me: how so? we very much DO feel. We are one of the most sensitive of creatures, no?

water: we might be one of the most 'sensitive' creatures, but we are not the 'only' 'sensitive' creatures and so since sensitivity is not specific for humans, sensitivity cannot be used as a criterium for what distinguishes an animal from a human.

i did say one of. and let me try and expand as to what i am meaning by 'sensitivity' in tisinstance. i am referring to emotional senstivity.........how many dogs for instance have the kinds of phobias some humans can get..? how many cats, pigs, donkeys etc?...this is not o say they couldn't. but i feel the increase of sensitivity for humans is the use of languge with its contradictions. social pressure & so on

water: whatdo you think constitutes a clear differentiation between animals and humans?

self-reflection. being able t seemingly scan the past, and predict, worry, angst over te future. in actuality we aren't scanning any 'past'....the thought patterns are happening NOW, but we still have te 'traces' of past we worry over, and bring this worry--carry it over into te future...................this is connected wit self-consciousness. somepeople can become so self-consciouss they become rigid. not often do you see tis in animals. human culture promotes self-consciousness
so self-consciosness is self-reflection. a looking IN...wheras the animal, and te human who has resolved guilting self-consciousness--whic has been indoctrinated via guilting myths, philsphies etc--look OUT...or better a Janusian in-out simultaneously

someone here mentioned the Garden of Eden myth. i suppose an interpretation o it can be the emergence of self-consciouness. but we must keep it in mind it is writ by patriarchs who are known for inversion, ie., making apositive into a negative. ie., makin nakedness a sin!

kenworth

10-05-05, 12:38 PM

Animals are not conscious of their body. If they were, they would be ashamed of being "naked". Adam and Eve ate the fruit (they became conscious), and they saw that they were naked, so they were ashamed. God made clothes of "skin" (the body) for them.

loads of humans arent ashamed of being naked.and anyway we only know that the thing in the mirror is us through experience and being taught that it is the case.you also have to be taught that a painting of a person is actually a representation of a person.for example does

:)

actually look like a smiling face?no but we have been taught that it does.

duendy

10-05-05, 01:40 PM

.....so what does self-consciousness man anyway?
is it particularly human would you say?.....isit like consciuousness truning back on itself, and seeing it in an objective way?

Hapsburg

10-05-05, 02:49 PM

What does it mean to be human?
To be a member of the species "Homo Sapiens Sapiens"/

Define "human".
A homo sapien.

Is it just the organism biologically being referred to as Homo sapiens?
Yes.

Hapsburg

10-05-05, 02:54 PM

They are not conscious of themselves.
You are more retarded than I thought. :rolleyes:

water

10-05-05, 03:19 PM

Duendy,

me: how so? we very much DO feel. We are one of the most sensitive of creatures, no?

water: we might be one of the most 'sensitive' creatures, but we are not the 'only' 'sensitive' creatures and so since sensitivity is not specific for humans, sensitivity cannot be used as a criterium for what distinguishes an animal from a human.

i did say one of. and let me try and expand as to what i am meaning by 'sensitivity' in tisinstance. i am referring to emotional senstivity.........how many dogs for instance have the kinds of phobias some humans can get..? how many cats, pigs, donkeys etc?...this is not o say they couldn't. but i feel the increase of sensitivity for humans is the use of languge with its contradictions. social pressure & so on
...

I think the comparison with animals is a blind alley. We can not know how animals think or feel, we can only make wild speculations. Maybe we can show our intellectual prowess in these speculations -- but this is it.

We cannot actually prove the difference between a dozing cat and a meditating monk.

Really, I think that the problem of defining what is human, is in fact a general methodological problem of what definitions are.

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 03:37 PM

and anyway we only know that the thing in the mirror is us through experience and being taught that it is the case.

No one has to teach a human to recognize his own mirror image. The mirror image does the same things as me, that's how I know it's me, but an animal has no self to relate to.

You are more retarded than I thought. :rolleyes:
I think everything is kind of "conscious". Matter is the first level of consciousness. It expresses itself only by drawing things toward it (magnetism), cooling down and paralyzing.

duendy

10-05-05, 04:27 PM

Duendy,

I think the comparison with animals is a blind alley. We can not know how animals think or feel, we can only make wild speculations.

me::: i entirely agree. how can we also know how another human feels? sure we can share grief, joy, etc, but we an NEVER really know teir unique experience of it.

Maybe we can show our intellectual prowess in these speculations -- but this is it.

me::yes. intellectual prowess....but tere are deeper means such as ecstatic communion

We cannot actually prove the difference between a dozing cat and a meditating monk.

me:::well, i say this. the monk sits cause he fels he must---to resolve 'karma'...to get to 'nirvana'--or be in it if thatswhatmonk belives. dfference with cat is, when she sits she sits, and when he gets up he gets up

Really, I think that the problem of defining what is human, is in fact a general methodological problem of what definitions are.

how can one define te undefinable?

water

10-05-05, 04:56 PM

Duendy,

We cannot actually prove the difference between a dozing cat and a meditating monk.

me:::well, i say this. the monk sits cause he fels he must---to resolve 'karma'...to get to 'nirvana'--or be in it if thatswhatmonk belives. dfference with cat is, when she sits she sits, and when he gets up he gets up

Well, Buddhist monks also just sit -- when they sit, they sit, and when they get up, they get up. Ideally, at least.
But anyway, this is not the point here.

how can one define te undefinable?

True. But if we leave it undefined -- how then can we justly speak of anything?

* * *

I know this has been mentioned to you many times ... I'd still like to bring it up again. I would like that your posts were more readable.

When you click the "reply" button to a post, you get to see a window, in which you type the reply, right?

In the left upper corner of this window, it is written [ QUOTE].
Please delete this.

Also, in the lower right corner, it is written [ /QUOTE].
Please delete this too.

Then use your imagination to mark the part of the text you are quoting (like, *** text ***), so that we'll know which is quoted, and which is yours.

This does not depend on what sort of a system you have. If you write your replies in a reply box, then you can do what I am suggesting above.
;)

kenworth

10-05-05, 04:57 PM

No one has to teach a human to recognize his own mirror image. The mirror image does the same things as me, that's how I know it's me, but an animal has no self to relate to.

.

do you remember the very very first time you looked in a mirror?probably went like:you patting the mirror,then parent saying "its you".havent you seen babies do this?

Onefinity

10-05-05, 06:20 PM

Animals are not conscious of their body. If they were, they would be ashamed of being "naked". Adam and Eve ate the fruit (they became conscious), and they saw that they were naked, so they were ashamed. God made clothes of "skin" (the body) for them.

I think you are confusing the notion of "conscious of the body" and "self-consciousness," which requires ego or self-objectification, the reflection of an image of oneself. If animals were not conscious of their bodies, then they would be completely numb and unable to walk, fly, run, swim, mitose, reproduce...anything. They must be aware of being. and of the contours of their structure in order to relate to their environment.

c7ityi_

10-05-05, 07:46 PM

Onefinity,

I don't agree. Animals operate with instincts. They don't think, they feel. I can also do things without being conscious of my body. Generally, when you listen to music, you can feel as though your body does not exist, there exists only the presence, the observer. If animals were aware, they would think, and they would do stupid things.

Prince_James

10-05-05, 08:17 PM

Onefinity:

James, how old are you?

Why do you ask?

LightEagle:

Do you think a dog or cat hopes? The basic definition of hope is to believe in something unseen. It accompanies a choice. An example would be a crisis one goes through in a relationship with the accompanying belief that the situation will improve in the future even though it may not seem that way. A dog or cat is driven by its desires. A human being has the choice not to be governed by desires and impulses.

In what way are dogs and cats driven by desires anymore than we? And who is to say that cats and dogs do not hope? Does not the wounded animal still yet seek to survive, hoping for life to persist even if it is in dire straits? Animals never kill themselves, for instance, but live till they can no longer. They endure incredible hardships and still seek, sometimes in vain, for a way to survive.

duendy:

me::who is he?

Gary Busey is an American actor who espouses nonsense conspiracy theories - including belief in the Illuminati - such as yourself. He was recently featured on "Celebrity Fit Club", and once had his own show on Comedy Central called "I'm with Busey".

me:::it isa human concept abstracted from a wholistic process. for example, isa crocodile attacking and eating a young child evil, or is it naturally hungry? contrast that with a human who seeks the little girsl to use and abuse for his/her pleasure. surely the latter is evil, and grows DUE to a divided consciousnss which hasLOST FEELING.

There is nothing inherently evil about raping a child. You will have to objectively prove evil to make this claim.

me:::byunderstanding the originary meaning of the term 'Lucifer' which means 'Venus'. so yes, Venus exists, butas for te mythical charactr concocted by tat Luciferian and Christian belief, no. except in teir heads

Yes, that is what I was refering to. Christian beliefs of Lucifer are nonsensical.

me:::how do YOU know that?

Because the Illuminati have absolutely no proof for their existence and, in general, the sources which claim they exist are unreliable, filled with inconsistancies, borderline insane, and are politically biased. www.rense.com, for instance, is the biggest piece of trash website on the net. David Icke is also a mad man.

me:::i am not ANTI intellect. i am anti intellect assuming it islordin over everything

But it is. Emotion can plumb no depths of the universe, realize nothing, et cetera. Intellect is the secret to unleashing all.

me:::tat is te intellect disseacting natrual process in a linear way--which is what overly intellectual observation will do. rather action is not re-action when it is not divided from itself. so example, whe i am sad, there is the action of sadness. its not re-action obviously

Not re-action? One cannot be sad without a reason. One cannot be sad "just 'cause". Sadness develops due to the presence of a stimulus. This it not simply what an "intellectual observation will do", but what is actually happening.

me:::we are ot talkin bacteriums, but humans. and of course emotions precede intellect. yu can see tis in te history of mythology in the west. there was the viseral ecstatic emotional rituals of classical Dionysiansm which then became reformed by the philosophical/intellectual Orphics who were the first to WRITE down teir DUALSTIC dogma. they belieed they were divine spirits trapped in Nature/body/emotions/matter....!
when we are born, we ont come out of mamas womb intellectualizing, but cryin!

ACtually, Zarathustra was the first prophet of Dualism, predating the "intellectual Orphics" by more than two millennia. Moreover, if thought developed in bacterium before humans developed, this "Dionysian ecstatic rituals" still came after the development of thinking. Not to mention that these rituals still used such things as fire, incense, et cetera, all created by the intellect.

me:::bit of a generalization

The cthonic nature of women, as traditionally been noted, isn't a generalization but a fact. Tradtionally, woman is associated more with the Earth.

me:::hmmmmm that way of putting it sounds typically reductionist and darwinist. i would say rather....we are human and FEEL. someofus anyhow

It is reductionist and darwinist.

me:::there you go again wit your supreme intellect. yes te intellect is prt of our pocess. but to intellectualiz it as being the 'god' is absurd, and very dangerous too. rather see that intellect--as it can do--compartmentalizes eality....cuts it up, and ten places itself top pf the tree. how silly is the intellectual-obsessed-with-itself-mind? VERY

It cuts up reality and places it beneath it, as the rational mind has been able to discern the very nature of reality and thus is obviously a master of it, specifically as once we know something, we may control it. Once we knew how to split the atom, we created the atomic bomb and nuclear reactor. Once we knew how to make fire, we made fires of all types. Once we understand something, we control it, and thus we impose our intellectual will and master it. We become as Gods.

me:::find the very ecrets of Nature...my arse

So you deny we have found the four forces of nature? The laws of thermodynamics? The laws of motion? All other scientific facts?

me:::chekout Christian de Quincey, who goes into about all this in much depth. i ca resonate it wit it because of psychedelic experience, and insights from oter tings and stuff i have read.........the current mind/body problem in science which is a continuation of a long long patriarchal insistence of a dality between 'spirit' and 'Nature',,,,,seem to have come up against impasse. de Quincey really spaks the obvious....someting ancient people knew. that spirit and matter were NVER really separate to begin with. end of 'problem'!...its the way yer ask questions...

Why does it not surprise me that you've dabbled in psychedelics? But I shall check out this man's works, just to amuse myself.

which means you hate humanity and being human. why no be Dr Spock then...heh.

Live long and prosper.

water:

In that they are just thoughts.

Yet do not thoughts relate to reality?

Onefinity

10-05-05, 11:10 PM

Onefinity

10-05-05, 11:10 PM

Onefinity:

Why do you ask?

I want to know whether my internal evaluation of your level of maturity vs. level of intellect is based in fact, or whether I am erroneous in my thinking. I'm sure you will appreciate the rationality of my inquiry.

water

10-06-05, 02:48 AM

Prince,

Yet do not thoughts relate to reality?

But in what way?! Is there a necessary and adequate relationship between our thoughts and reality?

* * *

Onefinity,

I want to know whether my internal evaluation of your level of maturity vs. level of intellect is based in fact, or whether I am erroneous in my thinking. I'm sure you will appreciate the rationality of my inquiry.

What does it matter how old he is?!
Are you judging the person or their arguments?

I do not appreciate the rationality of your inquiry, it shows your bias and inability to keep to the argument.

duendy

10-06-05, 06:15 AM

Prince James says quoute....'there is nothining inherently evil in raping a child'....not a oneof you reacts to tat utter vile remark. so i will

dude. i find you completely vile person. i have readyour views at oter treads and i do noteven want to fukin communicate with you......tis isrealy rare for me to say this. i have stuck it out with many differetn kinds of people...some quite offensive. but nothin as offensive asi find you.....so --i ner say never. if you realy provoke me i may respond. but i am just lewtting yo know, i wouod cross te roda rather than walk past a disgrace like yourself......you are de-human-ized

water

10-06-05, 06:54 AM

duendy

10-06-05, 07:09 AM

The truth is often repulsive, isn't it?
put it this way. with some of the people i know, who are real people--in tat teyaren't hypocrites, and he came out with that, tey would slap him good and proper

c7ityi_

10-06-05, 07:50 AM

I think you are giving short shrift to what it means to be an organism. Animals are not robots.

I didn't say they are.

Do you happen to have any pets?

No, but I've always wanted... a cat. Yesterday... I was taking things from my mother's car.... and I watched behind me... and I saw a black cat looking at me from a distance. I would want to be a cat... but it's hard.... because I'm so conscious...

water

10-06-05, 08:46 AM

put it this way. with some of the people i know, who are real people--in tat teyaren't hypocrites, and he came out with that, tey would slap him good and proper

Don't take Prince's argument personally.

Prince pointed out one of the terrible consequences of a biologically-based definition of what it means to be human. And most definitions that have been presented so far, of what it means to be human, were biologically-based (be it "human = member of species Homo sapiens", or "human = traits derivable from the biological substrate, traits like consciousness, intellect, emotions etc.").

Namely, if there is no *ethical* component in the definition of what it means to be human, then statements like Prince's (that raping a child is not evil in and of itself) are perfectly valid.

So the big issue here is to provide a sound ethical basis for what it means to be human.

Prince_James

10-06-05, 02:01 PM

Onefinity:

I want to know whether my internal evaluation of your level of maturity vs. level of intellect is based in fact, or whether I am erroneous in my thinking. I'm sure you will appreciate the rationality of my inquiry.

I will consider it. I generally don't give away such information on the principle that I assert that age is not very important in the least. If the quality (or lack thereof) of my ideas is not apparent, blame it not on my age (be I 8 or 80) but simply on my ability (or inability).

water:

But in what way?! Is there a necessary and adequate relationship between our thoughts and reality?

Think of this: All thoughts are sensory perception-based. How do we view reality? Through the same sensory perception.

What does it matter how old he is?!
Are you judging the person or their arguments?

I do not appreciate the rationality of your inquiry, it shows your bias and inability to keep to the argument.

I would agree with your sentiment here, Water.

duendy:

dude. i find you completely vile person. i have readyour views at oter treads and i do noteven want to fukin communicate with you......tis isrealy rare for me to say this. i have stuck it out with many differetn kinds of people...some quite offensive. but nothin as offensive asi find you.....so --i ner say never. if you realy provoke me i may respond. but i am just lewtting yo know, i wouod cross te roda rather than walk past a disgrace like yourself......you are de-human-ized

Okay.

c7ityi_:

No, but I've always wanted... a cat. Yesterday... I was taking things from my mother's car.... and I watched behind me... and I saw a black cat looking at me from a distance. I would want to be a cat... but it's hard.... because I'm so conscious...

How would you turn into the cat, anyway?

Water:

Prince pointed out one of the terrible consequences of a biologically-based definition of what it means to be human. And most definitions that have been presented so far, of what it means to be human, were biologically-based (be it "human = member of species Homo sapiens", or "human = traits derivable from the biological substrate, traits like consciousness, intellect, emotions etc.").

Namely, if there is no *ethical* component in the definition of what it means to be human, then statements like Prince's (that raping a child is not evil in and of itself) are perfectly valid.

So the big issue here is to provide a sound ethical basis for what it means to be human.

Nicely put.

Prince_James

10-06-05, 02:04 PM

I am compelled to share a song which I find fitting for the topic, namely, "Be Human". This song, composed by Yoko Kanno for the Japanese anime series "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" seems remarkably fitting for the topic, as it is about a robot who wishes to be human. From http://www.animelyrics.com/anime/ghostshell/behuman.htm:

I analyze and I verify and I quantify enough
100 percentile no errors no miss
I synchronize and I specialize and I classify so much
Don't worry 'bout dreaming because I don't sleep --

I wish I could at least 30 percent
Maybe 50 for pleasure then skip all the rest

If I only was more human
I would count every single second the rest of my life
If I just could be more human
I'd have so many little babies and maybe a wife

I'd roll around in mud and have lots of fun then when I was done
Build bubblebath towers and swim in the tub
Sand Castles on the beach, frolick in the sea, get a broken knee
Be scared of the dark and I'd sing out of key

Curse when I lost a fight, kiss and reunite, scratch a spider's bite
Be happy with wrinkles I got when I smile
Pet kittens 'till they purred, maybe keep a bird, always keep my word
I'd cry at sad movies and laugh 'till it hurt

I'd buy a big bike, I'd ride by the lake
And I'd have lots of friends and I'd stay out too late

If I could just be more human
I would see every little thing with a gleam in my eye
If only I was more human
I'd embrace every single feeling that came in my life

Would I care and be forgiving?
Would I be sentimental and would I feel loneliness?

Would I doubt and have misgivings?
Would I cause someone sorrow too? Would I know what to do?

Will I cry when its all over?

When I die will I see Heaven?

Tell me: Is it against Sciforums policy to post an mp3 of something copyrighted? Because I happen to have an mp3 file of this song which I'd be more than willing to share.

Sarkus

10-06-05, 02:46 PM

Prince pointed out one of the terrible consequences of a biologically-based definition of what it means to be human. And most definitions that have been presented so far, of what it means to be human, were biologically-based (be it "human = member of species Homo sapiens", or "human = traits derivable from the biological substrate, traits like consciousness, intellect, emotions etc.").

Namely, if there is no *ethical* component in the definition of what it means to be human, then statements like Prince's (that raping a child is not evil in and of itself) are perfectly valid.

So the big issue here is to provide a sound ethical basis for what it means to be human.Any biological definition people give is nothing but a definition of what a human IS - not of what it MEANS TO BE HUMAN.

I do not believe it means anything to be human other than to be human. We are who we are.

We live according to the social structures we set up, according to the laws we create. We define what it means to be human, we define humanity, by being who we are. We can not escape that. It is a truth.

So what does it mean to be human other than to be who we are?

duendy

10-06-05, 04:27 PM

it is a good ting to look at how organizatons DE-humanize people to make them conform to a group mind. take the military. they share with cults the strategy for dehumanizing an individual and taing away individualo freedom of feeling and thought...shaving heads, uniform, or nakedness, humiliation, mechanical time drilling, fanatic abeyance to authority, and so on.....these strategies haven't just com out of the blue. they have been very meticulously worked out. the military for esample are very keen using psychological techniques to gain their power over the individual. turning them into a dehumanized killing machine......sam with mos insitutions, school, uni., the civil service, politics, religion, etc

so. what does it mean to be human?

Qorl

10-06-05, 04:42 PM

To be alive

duendy

10-06-05, 05:04 PM

To be alive

so then i wonder...what does being alive mean?...i am not just interested in a purely intellectual analysis of this qeustion, but a visceral answer's needed to. causw we are both mind and body. i wonder when the mind goes dead do the body too

Onefinity

10-06-05, 05:40 PM

Onefinity:

I will consider it. I generally don't give away such information on the principle that I assert that age is not very important in the least. If the quality (or lack thereof) of my ideas is not apparent, blame it not on my age (be I 8 or 80) but simply on my ability (or inability).

Well, I don't agree when it comes to some of the nature of the conversation here. The reason is that much of what we talk about here involves not just logic, but also wisdom. And where it involves wisdom, it involves the whole person, and it also involves the context of life that the person brings. Thus if you said the ideas you said and I knew you were 10 or 30 or 60, I would know something more about the ideas. Not because a 60 year old can reason or explain better than a 20 year old, but because a 60 year old has had more existence through which to temper and balance ideas with the emotional, physical, pragmatic, and other things. This is not to say that a 20 year old can't have wisdom as well as intellect; it's just that they cannot simulate or replace the informative effect of experience, time, and personal growth.

In other words, if you are, say, 20, I am not going to think less of your ideas. I am simply going to grant them a more full appreciation given the human they are coming from. That is, a 20 year old, a 40 year old, and a 60 year old sitting at the table aren't equal (i.e., the same). They are plusqual - that is, each has something different to offer. In other words, rather than divorce the words from the speaker, I want to appreciate the words better by knowing who the speaker is, because that is the lived reality of human collaborative relationships, rather than artifice of an electronic bulletin board.

In other words, the same mechanism that protects from prejudice also filters out much of the value.

In other words, if you are 80, then what you present on this website isn't very impressive at all, because it doesn't reflect the degree of lived experience - with balance, wholeness, artfulness, the depth - that a person of that age would probably bring to philosophy to make ideas compelling. But if you are 15, then what you present on this website is VERY impressive, because of the vocabulary, questioning, and clarity of reasoning.

water

10-07-05, 07:03 AM

Any biological definition people give is nothing but a definition of what a human IS - not of what it MEANS TO BE HUMAN.

I do not believe it means anything to be human other than to be human. We are who we are.

We live according to the social structures we set up, according to the laws we create. We define what it means to be human, we define humanity, by being who we are. We can not escape that. It is a truth.

So what does it mean to be human other than to be who we are?

Stating identities doesn't bring us anywhere.

water

10-07-05, 07:04 AM

In other words, if you are 80, then what you present on this website isn't very impressive at all, because it doesn't reflect the degree of lived experience - with balance, wholeness, artfulness, the depth - that a person of that age would probably bring to philosophy to make ideas compelling. But if you are 15, then what you present on this website is VERY impressive, because of the vocabulary, questioning, and clarity of reasoning.

This is just awful. How conditional human praise is!
No wonder it's worth not even a broken dime.

LightEagle

10-07-05, 08:17 AM

Have you ever had a cat or a dog??

Yes, in fact I have had a dog and make no mistake, was very fond if it. My point, however is that a dog is a pack animal and only remains loyal to its masters because it sees itself as part of the pack. A cat will remain with you as long as it is fed. In other words any "love" an animal may have for its master is because of its own needs. I will be specific. My point is that we are different to animals and by the way, chimpanzees do "screw 24/7". Not all the time of course, but any time. Its about satisfaction of desires which they cannot control and which they cannot choose against. Very few animals experience pleasure when mating. It's a "must do" in order to proliferate their genetic material and this is another reason they do not do it 24/7

duendy

10-07-05, 09:03 AM

Yes, in fact I have had a dog and make no mistake, was very fond if it. My point, however is that a dog is a pack animal and only remains loyal to its masters because it sees itself as part of the pack.

me:::well, tat makes sense. but itis reductiony. like fromma manual type of ting. it doesn't reveal the intracicies of relationship beteeen human and animal....the nuances....te magic...potential for surprises, evolving

A cat will remain with you as long as it is fed. In other words any "love" an animal may have for its master is because of its own needs. I will be specific. My point is that we are different to animals and by the way, chimpanzees do "screw 24/7". Not all the time of course, but any time. Its about satisfaction of desires which they cannot control and which they cannot choose against. Very few animals experience pleasure when mating. It's a "must do" in order to proliferate their genetic material and this is another reason they do not do it 24/7

oh my gawwwd, you know so much what it's like to be an animal dont you? .....am jokin
look. a person, especially a man will usually only stick round while he's being fed and can get a good fuk. gro uuuup. where've ya been?
and for many men too a fuk is slam bam. didn't Reich also tll us how whatmany think are orgasms are really so much less than what could be achieved wit more care and feeling?

in udder words. your talkin outta your...udder

Rick

10-07-05, 10:38 AM

Wht does it mean to be human?
Ans: Getting and managing 3 GFs at a time,finding time to drink everclear at least once a week.

:D

Peace.
Rick

Sarkus

10-07-05, 04:12 PM

Well, I don't agree when it comes to some of the nature of the conversation here. The reason is that much of what we talk about here involves not just logic, but also wisdom.The one good think about discussing things on the internet is that you DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS YOU'RE TALKING WITH.

The nature of debate is at its finest when it is only the arguments that are listened to - not the argumentor; when it is the words that make the point - not the speaker.

To base ANYTHING upon the age, the sex, the creed, the colour, the sexual preference of an individual is the cardinal sin of logical debate.

Sure, it is okay to bring your age, your sex etc into the debate as part of the evidence to support a claim, but knowing someone's age is irrelevant to the topic in hand.

If you read the posts of someone ONLY because they are 80, or don't listen to someone because they are under 10, means that you have already suffered your first serious flaw.
It is not WHO says things - but WHAT is being said.

Onefinity

10-07-05, 04:22 PM

It is not WHO says things - but WHAT is being said.

No matter how hard you try, the what cannot be divorced from the who. Also, FYI, I don't believe that debate is the best vehicle for most of the issues discussed here. Dialogue is better. So don't debate...create!

Prince_James

10-07-05, 08:53 PM

Onefinity:

Well, I don't agree when it comes to some of the nature of the conversation here. The reason is that much of what we talk about here involves not just logic, but also wisdom. And where it involves wisdom, it involves the whole person, and it also involves the context of life that the person brings. Thus if you said the ideas you said and I knew you were 10 or 30 or 60, I would know something more about the ideas. Not because a 60 year old can reason or explain better than a 20 year old, but because a 60 year old has had more existence through which to temper and balance ideas with the emotional, physical, pragmatic, and other things. This is not to say that a 20 year old can't have wisdom as well as intellect; it's just that they cannot simulate or replace the informative effect of experience, time, and personal growth.

Experience can also unduly bias one in favour of what one has experienced instead of what could be. A farmer might speak of his experience as a farmer as if it was the only experience available, whilst a jack-of-all-trades would know better.

In other words, if you are, say, 20, I am not going to think less of your ideas. I am simply going to grant them a more full appreciation given the human they are coming from. That is, a 20 year old, a 40 year old, and a 60 year old sitting at the table aren't equal (i.e., the same). They are plusqual - that is, each has something different to offer. In other words, rather than divorce the words from the speaker, I want to appreciate the words better by knowing who the speaker is, because that is the lived reality of human collaborative relationships, rather than artifice of an electronic bulletin board.

Interesting, interesting. I shall certainly consider it then, yes.

In other words, the same mechanism that protects from prejudice also filters out much of the value.

In other words, if you are 80, then what you present on this website isn't very impressive at all, because it doesn't reflect the degree of lived experience - with balance, wholeness, artfulness, the depth - that a person of that age would probably bring to philosophy to make ideas compelling. But if you are 15, then what you present on this website is VERY impressive, because of the vocabulary, questioning, and clarity of reasoning.

Might you elaborate on how it'd be unimpressive were I 80, that is, to explain what you would mean by "balance", "wholeness", "artfulness", and "depth"?

water

10-09-05, 06:09 AM

Yes, in fact I have had a dog and make no mistake, was very fond if it. My point, however is that a dog is a pack animal and only remains loyal to its masters because it sees itself as part of the pack. A cat will remain with you as long as it is fed. In other words any "love" an animal may have for its master is because of its own needs. I will be specific. My point is that we are different to animals and by the way, chimpanzees do "screw 24/7". Not all the time of course, but any time. Its about satisfaction of desires which they cannot control and which they cannot choose against. Very few animals experience pleasure when mating. It's a "must do" in order to proliferate their genetic material and this is another reason they do not do it 24/7

I have asked you before, but you haven't answered:

What are you trying to prove with this whole cat/dog argument?
That humans are in some way superior to animals, or at least sufficiently different?
Be clear and exact.

LightEagle

10-11-05, 12:01 AM

I have asked you before, but you haven't answered:

What are you trying to prove with this whole cat/dog argument?
That humans are in some way superior to animals, or at least sufficiently different?
Be clear and exact.

Humans are sufficiently different from animals to warrant an alternative explanation for their our origins.

beyondtimeandspace

10-11-05, 01:26 AM

Humans are animals.

root

10-11-05, 04:28 AM

I think it has more to do with behavior than with capabilities:
Some people are Pigs,
Some people are Snakes,
Some people are Apes,
Some people are Sharks,
Some people are Donkeys,
Some dogs are almost Human.

Next time you go to the Aquarium check all the funny faces of the different types of fish, you can find all these expressions in people.

c20H25N3o

10-11-05, 04:52 AM

What does it mean to be human?

It means we rule over everything else because we have the capability to as humans. How we choose to rule over everything else is a subject for a different thread :)

peace

c20

(Q)

10-11-05, 09:23 AM

It means we rule over everything else

Typical Christian attitude. Do you guys ever not think you're the center of the universe?

c20H25N3o

10-11-05, 09:32 AM

It means we rule over everything else

Typical Christian attitude. Do you guys ever not think you're the center of the universe?

How typical of you rather to take this opportunity to knock Christian thinking in a completely unrelated thread!

Why do you take the word 'rule' to mean something negative. It is possible to rule / manage whatever you want to call it, 'sensibly', and given that of all the life forms on earth we seem to have the most ability to manage our environment it would be a crime if we did not do that responsibly.

You sound like a stuck record mate. Change the tune!

peace

c20

(Q)

10-11-05, 09:53 AM

Why do you take the word 'rule' to mean something negative.

Because that is the track record of Christians, so if the shoe fits...

It is possible to rule / manage whatever you want to call it, 'sensibly', and given that of all the life forms on earth we seem to have the most ability to manage our environment it would be a crime if we did not do that responsibly.

Please note that the last hundreds of years was 'managed' by theists, mostly Christians. Again, it is their track record that speaks volumes.

You sound like a stuck record mate. Change the tune!

The stuck record IS 'Christian rule' and yes, I'm trying to change that tune.

c20H25N3o

10-11-05, 10:14 AM

C20: Why do you take the word 'rule' to mean something negative?

(Q): Because that is the track record of Christians, so if the shoe fits...

Stereotype all you need to. Whatever works for you eh?

C20: It is possible to rule / manage whatever you want to call it, 'sensibly', and given that of all the life forms on earth we seem to have the most ability to manage our environment it would be a crime if we did not do that responsibly.

(Q): Please note that the last hundreds of years was 'managed' by theists, mostly Christians. Again, it is their track record that speaks volumes.

You had better carry on bashing Christians then until you find the real culprit.

C20: You sound like a stuck record mate. Change the tune!

(Q): The stuck record IS 'Christian rule' and yes, I'm trying to change that tune.

Where on earth was I talking about Christian rule!!! This is your hang up not mine. I was talking about what it means to be human and the responsibilities that come with our position in the food chain. :rolleyes:

peace

c20

water

10-11-05, 02:33 PM

Humans are sufficiently different from animals to warrant an alternative explanation for their our origins.

What do you mean by this?

And humans being "sufficiently different" from animals -- how do justify this statement?
Do you think humans are somehow better than animals, morally superior?

You are a Christian, right? Do you believe that God created animals? If you believe that God created animals, then I can only say that you show a great lack of respect and reverence for God's creations. So far, what you have said about animals is nothing but regurgitating cheap humanist, unprovable assumptions about how animals supposedly are.

Where did God say, "Hey, human, now go and and be bold and make farfetched assumptions about My other creations, treat them for what you think they are, not for what I, their Creator, hold them. I don't mind. You know, you are so great, and I love your mind, I love being defined by what you say that I am!"??

My point, however is that a dog is a pack animal and only remains loyal to its masters because it sees itself as part of the pack. A cat will remain with you as long as it is fed. In other words any "love" an animal may have for its master is because of its own needs.

Shame on you.

You have defined cats and dogs to be that way as you say -- and this is how you treat them. And the poor things, depending on you for their survival, bend to your treatment, and indeed appear to become what you have defined them as.

And this is why, my dear Light Eagle, ALL you get from a dog is that he is a "pack animal", and from a cat that he is with you "as long as he is fed".
You don't offer them to be more to you, so you get only what you have offered them.

LightEagle

10-12-05, 12:39 AM

What do you mean by this?

And humans being "sufficiently different" from animals -- how do justify this statement?
Do you think humans are somehow better than animals, morally superior?

Nor superior, just different. I'm not berating animals. I'm just trying to point out differences.

You are a Christian, right? Do you believe that God created animals? If you believe that God created animals, then I can only say that you show a great lack of respect and reverence for God's creations.

Why? I believe in the process of evolution, but I believe that this process was guided by God. I believe the universe is ~15 billion years old, but that it was created by God. I believe the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but that it was brought into existence by God, by whatever means. All life may have been derived from a metazoan, but I believe it was a guided process by the hand of God. Why do you say that I have lack of respect? I have immense respect for all life and all creation. I have been in deserts, southwestern and sub- to tropical eastern African countries and have always stood in absolute awe at what is out there in terms of creation.

So far, what you have said about animals is nothing but regurgitating cheap humanist, unprovable assumptions about how animals supposedly are.

I am definately not a humanist. There are times when a human being looses his right to be treated like one. Someone who murders or rapes for example. I live by the code of personal responsibility towards my God, myself and others.

You have defined cats and dogs to be that way as you say -- and this is how you treat them. And the poor things, depending on you for their survival, bend to your treatment, and indeed appear to become what you have defined them as.

And this is why, my dear Light Eagle, ALL you get from a dog is that he is a "pack animal", and from a cat that he is with you "as long as he is fed".
You don't offer them to be more to you, so you get only what you have offered them.

You have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that all an animal desirves is to get fed. I have listened to music with the dog on my lap for hours and ran around outside tossing it the ball. I was really very fond of the dog ("was" because it died 2 years ago). All I was trying to say was that the dog's "love" for me was