Nothing more than I do not wish to get into endless debates about ruining the environment, wars and the like. The same to you: Is a person with Down Syndrome or Alzheimer's human, according to you (as you state above)?[/QUOTE] Beyond any doubt whatsoever.
I'm making statements. Good. It's not gone, you know, so you needn't use past tense. I'd love to, but my time on MSN is scarce lately. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But how can you prove any of the above?
So, basically, you are being choosy based on some prejudice? On what grounds are you stating this? I'm just being thorough. It seems very elusive, a non-biological definition of "human".
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?
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.
Nope. ^From the Philosophical Dictionary 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.
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.
water: What sort? Good. Well, if you do get on, give me a ring! 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: 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: This is accurate, since most of those deal with ontology, which is a subdivision of metaphysics. Rather accurate, yes. 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? 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. - Wikipedia. Here, let's go to that thread with this.
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
Duendy: 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?
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
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" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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*
Light, 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, 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? 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, Not if you are anomalous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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, *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, Look closely and you'll see! Will do. Thank you! * * * In which case, you count mere potentiality to suffice for a being to be considered human? Good! * * * duendy, I actually agree with you! * * * Prince_James, 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. 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-. Oooh. Aaah. Eh. * * * Quantum Quack, 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? Are we to write "42" into the Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights? * * * duendy, Set your outrage aside, and answer the question. Prince and I are just being thorough.
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
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.
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.
duendy: 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. Who says? A world without intellect, by default, is meaningless. Meaning only develops out of intellect. 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. I don't have a religion. But yes, women are more "Earthly" as traditionally been asserted. 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. Yes. For reason is far better than feeling. 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. 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? And why ought one have emotions at all? They have no inherent value.
