IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,654
- Reactions
- 4,730
Yeah agree there Julia. I use the word without those connotations, as many do, but most probably assume the religious meaning anyway.I'm trying without success to find a word to substitute for spiritual which to me has religious/faith connotations.
That's because you are stuck with the "Dude in the sky" meme.Of course we are all animals, and in the end compost.
I came to this "logical" conclusion when i was about 14 years old.
One of my fav sayings/quotes...below.
A god that answers prayers is a delusion.
A god that doesn't answer prayers isn't a god.
There are infinite possibilities otherwise.
Ill put a very simplified view of the human species forward. Yes, we are animals, but we are the lowest form of animal. Reason? We have the intellect and self awareness to behave in a better manner than animals, but still choose not to.
Springhill...just a query about the `better manner than animals` & `self awareness~ (which most people lack) bit if you would.
My perception of animal behavior is simply survival and existance.Eating procreating and sleeping.In balance and perpetuating species.
How can human behave better than animals?
I'm not attempting to answer for Springhill but my view would be that humans with their intellect and awareness - and education - have the capacity to make constructive choices about their behaviour (I'm trying to avoid the words "moral" and "ethical" here because they imply judgements, i.e. who is to say what is morally or ethically appropriate?) but so often we fail to live up to our capacity in this respect. So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog, etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.
I'm not attempting to answer for Springhill but my view would be that humans with their intellect and awareness - and education - have the capacity to make constructive choices about their behaviour (I'm trying to avoid the words "moral" and "ethical" here because they imply judgements, i.e. who is to say what is morally or ethically appropriate?) but so often we fail to live up to our capacity in this respect. So in many ways, an animal, e.g. dog, etc, is more pure with its lack of malevolence, cunning, competitiveness, bellicosity, or other ugly human traits.
Ill put a very simplified view of the human species forward. Yes, we are animals, but we are the lowest form of animal. Reason? We have the intellect and self awareness to behave in a better manner than animals, but still choose not to.
So what is your IS? To just BE is a little esoteric for my liking at the moment.Why do you assume that to 'BE' is to do nothing? Of course we procreate, protect our young and ensure our survival. That is the 'is'
So, Julia are you assuming animals can be 'spiritual' too? Or, that we are animals, but a particularly developed animal that has the ability to think there must be a reason? It's just a brain development issue....Do we have to necessarily be either spiritual or animal? I don't see why.
.....
Altruism: doesn't it exist when, e.g. someone spontaneously rushes into a burning house to save an occupant? Isn't that person instinctively reacting to the need to save a life? Or does he in fact, even momentarily, think before rushing in "Ah, if I pull this person out of a burning house I will receive much recognition and praise and will be called a hero". I doubt it.
Mofra, as I said responded to Julia, I think there may be acts of genuine altruism, perhaps, but the one you have listed is probably not, IMO. They are carefully considered actions for the benefit of someone else, that assists in the survival of the species, and ultimately yourself. Most people are unwilling to accept this and just go on day to day thinking they are being 'good' without seeing the truth behind their actions. Or, I could be wrong? This is one of things I'm trying to sort out. Cheers.With all due respect to your beliefs Kennas (and I'm glad there are people who ponder such things at great length, so no disrespect intended at all) I cannot possibly agree with that last sentence. There are thousands of examples of self-sacrifice and altruism. Although wartime heroics (in terms of self sacrifice) would be the most obvious, I have met many people who have given up financial security, their social lives, friendship circles etc to care for sick relatives. Thousands of Australians olunteer every day for no benefit to themselves (and yes, obviously many more do so to feel purposeful).
Are you speaking for yourself about yourself or for others about them. I know a lot of very good people and I've seen the damage rogue dogs have done to a mob of sheep. I have had dogs working for me with more intelligence and self awareness than some people I know and I have had the privilege to have had as friends men I can not fault.
It is time you looked for the good in some of those around you or you had better keep better company.
Springhill, I'm not too sure about the 'worse act' argument you're presenting here to prove humans are lower, or more unethical, or less moral, or whatever your saying, than animals. The 'indiscriminate' acts you describe probably have a purpose. We do have 'choices' but they are choices we make in response to our environment and circumstances, which force us to act the way we do. There is a lot of violence in the world, but in the scheme of things we probably get on pretty well considering how closely we all live together and the capacity we have to inflict pain and grief if we choose to. Lions don't have the capability make and fire a rifle, for example, but if they could they'd probably be using it to effect, instead of doing all that prowling around and growling and the like. Although, they'd probably just be killing what they needed to eat perhaps.....unlike our behaviour. hmmmmyour point of the rogue dog is invalid as it knows no better
compare that to a human that indiscriminatly kills 2,4,10 people
which is the worse act?
and why?
Also if we are animals then why are we the only kind of animals that can advance through time?
I mean there are so many different animal species on this earth yet only us human animals have the ability to progress??
Evolutionary progress, the idea that there is a largest-scale trend in evolution of organisms and that the trend is toward improvement
Springhill, I'm not too sure about the 'worse act' argument you're presenting here to prove humans are lower, or more unethical, or less moral, or whatever your saying, than animals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?