The biggest problem of humanity is that We are Animals pretending not to be Animals
-
But like, practically, what does that mean?
I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.
Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as "natural". Cats hunt mice. It's natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.
Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument "natural" are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.
And that's usually where the wheels come off. We're animals. We have animal urges. They're informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.
We're animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we're animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don't suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of "natural" and "acceptable" and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.
This isn't a new idea. I can't stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.
-
Well, you have explained it as concisely and clearly as I never EVER could. Thank you.
-
Being concious of and being able to critically look at what we are and how we act would be one answer. Sort of like what you did when you made this post
The cat outside isnt arguing about ethics, doesnt think about the consequences and decide not to act on some base desire, etc
-
Good point. I'll give you that.
-
"I am cringe, but I am free"
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Personally, I think it does a phenomenal job of explaining a great deal of human behaviour. Resource hoarding despite enough for all, the will to dominate, visceral hatred of those who believe differently than us, and I'm sure there's more.
From a psychological viewpoint, it explains a lot of behavior that isn't necessarily reasonable unless you account for an irrational mind acting on modern problems - things that our minds weren't designed to handle.
-
That's literally my mantra, and I'm waaaaay more happy since I accepted it
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I agree that from a psychological lens there is value. "Why does a person do or think things?" Valuable there.
I don't think it's very valuable from an ethics/philosophy standpoint. "Is it right to do a thing?"
I don't think it's especially valuable from a sociological perspective either, it needlessly complicates a model. For some population, a variance of greed will exis within it. A variance of fear of outsiders.
I don't mean to shit on the idea. Just suggesting where the limits of value may be on the idea.
-
We still have this notion and hubris that we're above animals, and animals are below us who are alright being stepped on and abused. I noticed that in a lot of cultures, their insults and profanities is being compared to an animal (in Europe, the profanities seem to be generally sexual).
Also, for the religious, admitting we're animals is definitely an insult and denial of biblical teachings that god created humans. When Charles Darwin's theory of evolution first became a mainstream sensation, some cartoonists drew him as a monkey. I debated with a religious before who believes in conspiracy theories. After pointing out about evolution, I was called a monkey. I wasn't even insulted though because, yes, that is basically what I'm trying to say. But technically I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape. Humans are apes. The monkeys are our cousins. Religious folks don't like to admit we're animals because it contradicts their beliefs.
-
The only animal capbable of destroying the earth and creating stock exchanges. And vaping. And sending a message to the universe.
Plus the 1969 Chevrolet Corvette.
Ha! Suck it, trilobites!
-
Yeah I was thinking about this the other day after watching some Twilight Zone or something. It's interesting that a lot of our fantasy/sci-fi is about how pathetic humanity might be compared to alien beings, especially since in reality we actualy play the role of the highly superior beings.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Religious folks don’t like to admit we’re animals because it contradicts their beliefs.
Their religion is based on the idea that we're special somehow. It allows their followers to feel better than the 'lesser' animals, and the 'lesser' races/cultures. They teach what we're the chosen ones with our tools, and language, and emotion, and thoughts.
The fact that we're all equal, and that other animals have all of those qualities is a threat to their power.
-
The people following Abrahamic religions do anyway, their magic books tell them so.
-
[email protected]replied to FartsWithAnAccent last edited by
There's psychology that goes along with it, it's not just scientific classification. It's also about ego.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
You’ll be sorry when one day that plastic bag that wasn’t in the path yesterday jumps up and kills you!
-
That style does seem to predominate, especially in video form, but there are others where humans compete more on if not quite fully equal than at least more equal terms. Babylon Five springs to mind there.
Also more outside but some still fully inside of "scify" the more "fantasy" elements may posit the existence of alternative universes that we travel to & from not by traversing physical space in between but through portals, accessible here on earth. Like Stargate.
So, those others are out there, but yeah it definitely meshes less well with what we see and know now about what might be in space.
-
We are humans. We are animals. And we are more than that. Perhaps we are also lesser than that at the same time?
The duality was how the idea was presented to me - this is not my OC, or perhaps the words are but the concept I first heard told by an atheist apologeticist (if that's a thing) Daniel Dennett speaking out against Intelligent Design (which at the time was still a thing that people bothered arguing against). I believe he was relating it to a binary classification scheme such as machine learning approaches are often built to follow. Anyway it's just a vehicle for the conveyance of the idea - obviously nuances exist irl, yet there is some value in keeping things simple too, especially at first.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Haha no worries I think you make absolutely fair points regarding ethics and philosophy - these topics have to stand outside animalistic origins, as evolution only really asks "but will I survive?" Pausing for rational thought about the propriety of a behavior is unlikely to convey animalistic benefit.
Sociologically (?), on the face of it I think it's a little harder to extricate animalistic tendencies, as our herd behaviors are intrinsically related to our animalistic/psychological tendency - or maybe better said as they share a reciprocal relationship, feeding back into each other. But that said, I have no knowledge of sociology models so I'll defer to your assertion.
Either way, I think we're barking up the same tree with some variation in the importance of different factors, hey?
-
Hmm, ok. Now I can see the point you where making. Thanks for elaborate.
-
Only second to cyanobacteria.
