And what are we pretending to be?
“Humans”.
And what are Humans?
“Not animals, that’s for sure!”
Agree we are animals…but not sure that is the biggest problem…
Like, yeah of course there’s a lot other things. Maybe I should should have say “one of the biggest”
Humans could all be grey blobs and people would still argue they are greyest and blobiest. They love to feel special.
Hey, I recognize a The Fairly OddParents reference when I see one. That’s good taste, fella 👌
If this definition sits well with you, you’re probably theist.
Emm… Could you elaborate, please? 😅
If something a person created is unnatural then it must be produced by something other than nature. How are we not a part of the natural world?
But we are nature, part of it, therefore everything we do is natural too, I totally convince of it. My problem is that some of us act like we were something apart from nature, above even.
That’s my point. The way we use the words natural and unnatural are not congruent with their definition.
What would it mean to you, to stop pretending to edit: NOT be animals?
To “Stop pretending we are not animals” to me is to stop the antropocentric way of seeing nature and the universe.
For example, is not that certain animals have “human-like” behavior, but rather that we, as animals, share the certain behaviors with other animals.
And I’m convinced that, if we understand other animals more, we would understand ourselves better.
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.
Great explanation - I find 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 (ingroup vs. outgroup theory), 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.
Edit: clarification
I agree that from a psychological lens there is value. “Why does a person do or think things?” Valuable there. VERY valuable. Greed, fear, when do they become maladaptive? Why does this happen? Is it intrinsic to some individuals or is it just capacity?
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.
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?
Well, you have explained it as concisely and clearly as I never EVER could. Thank you.
We are above animals though, humans were able to conquer the earth, light it up, send its people beyond it, create complex language and more whilst animals can’t really do any of that
You’re not wrong but I think you’re missing the point. The point is that a lot of people believe that everything that makes Earth has an intrinsic value in and of itself. That doesn’t mean that us as humans as part of the earth can’t capture some of that value and put it to our own efforts. It does mean that we should have respect for the living and non-living things that make up our planet and can’t take everything. Just because Dolphin’s didn’t invent the light bulb doesn’t mean they don’t have their own value to themselves. It just means that we don’t understand it.
Oh yeah I didn’t mean it as in because we are superior we should step over all of the living beings on the earth. They might not have the same mental capability as us but I do agree that they can feel and do serve a purpose on the earth alongsides us.
Can you do any of that?
I could with enough motivation yeah
So no, you can’t. Guess you aren’t human, just an animal huh?
How can I not though? Every human is capable of doing these things. What makes us better than animals is that we can cooperate on much grander things that extend beyond death
The problem is saying that what we’re capable of makes us “better” and “superior.” Says who? That “superiority” will probably also be what kills us off.
In my opinion, our mental capability does make us better as we are able to adapt and innovate much faster than regular animals would, which can get us out of awful situations.
Yes, we are very adaptable, which has allowed us to spread over pretty much the whole world and shape it to our needs. However, we also are destroying the ecosystem that keeps us alive, which is getting us into an awful situation entirely of our own making.
I don’t believe you are capable of any of the examples you mentioned.
Why?
Because you haven’t demonstrated any of it.
If you’re belief is that any human is capable of these things but not yet educated, how do you humans are the only ones that can be taught?
Because humans have studied the brains of other creatures and from what we know, it is unlikely that any other species can do so.
Care to cite these studies claiming human brains are intrinsically superior? The primary difference among mammals is the size and fold density. Koalas are famously smooth-brained, but other animals have greater memory and reasoning capability with larger, deeper folds. What they lack is language. Humans developed superior vocal cords, allowing great variation in speech patterns that jump started written language and, by effect, written history. Have you not seen the videos and reports of the incredible communication and logical capabilities of other animals such as dogs learning 300 commands and using 40+ speech buttons? Have you not heard the tales of octopus escape artists defeating locks?
Survival is what your parents and local community can teach you. But innovation and invention? You are the product of thousands of years of written language passing on more information than any single person could remember and more then any single community could develop on its own. The biggest brain in the world would sound like an idiot without language. We are not above animals, we just talk like we are.
That’s a stupid question. As a collective, humanity is able to accomplish all these things.
animals literally did that. we are those animals.
But only one specific species of animals did that. Most animals are incapable of doing that, which is why we are superior
Hey bud? Octupi are developed enough to maintain neighborhood communities, and they managed to avoid inventing money, taxes, and HoAs. They’re also not actively destroying the planet.
Let’s not pretend like anything we are doing has an inherent good to it. Animal societies looking different to ours doesn’t make them inferior to ours. What humanity has wrought is nothing to brag about.
You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel
You’re on the internet, anyone here might not be human
The next stage of evolution:
Animal -> Human -> Porn Bot -> ???
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!
Only second to cyanobacteria.
Pretending to be an animal doesn’t solve much either but it’s fun from time to time.
If we pretend to be other animal, sure isn’t helpful. Is not about pretending to be this or that, but to stop the antropocentris and start to see ourselves as part of something, not something apart of everything else.
I knew someone from this instance was going to post. I knew it!
Speak for yourself. I’m a filthy mo fo
That’s why furries were invented
I am? [farts]
Would an animal fart like that?
You might be interested in looking into Cynic philosophy and into the sparse but colorful stories surrounding Diogenes of Sinope
I know my fella Dionegenes pretty well. He was based as fuck 🔥🔥
deleted by creator
