|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:31 pm
The answer really depends on your perspective. Western thought thorugh its dominant religious traditions has tended to emphasize a wall between humanity and nature, and that we are the 'masters' of this Earth and Earth is a resource to be exploited. Eastern thought tends to have a much more interconnected view of humanity in relation to nature as did the indigenous people of the Americas. But those modes of thought aren't dominant here in the West, so we're lead to believe through culture that we're the hottest thing on the planet. Not everyone does, though. Those who study science and the marvels all around us with intimate detail see that we're just one tiny twig on the tree of life. An important twig, but how much more important relative to everything else depends on point of view.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:37 pm
Starlock The answer really depends on your perspective. Western thought thorugh its dominant religious traditions has tended to emphasize a wall between humanity and nature, and that we are the 'masters' of this Earth and Earth is a resource to be exploited. Eastern thought tends to have a much more interconnected view of humanity in relation to nature as did the indigenous people of the Americas. But those modes of thought aren't dominant here in the West, so we're lead to believe through culture that we're the hottest thing on the planet. Not everyone does, though. Those who study science and the marvels all around us with intimate detail see that we're just one tiny twig on the tree of life. An important twig, but how much more important relative to everything else depends on point of view. How can any one twig be more important than any other twig? How do we know that we are such an important twig? This is exactly the type of thought that I am aganst. Exactly the type of thought that Western culture inplants in us. On the tree of life no branch is more important that any other branch, no twig more important than any other twig. You are right it does depend on your point of view how much you value the diffrent parts of the tree. However I hold that such points of view often leads to folly and arrogance of the type to be seen in our culture. Most importantly as philosophers we must relize that our point of view is not the only one nor likely the correct one. For ten thousand years we have treated this planet as if we ruled it as if we were the most important things on it, we are not and it is time we relized it lest the tree wither and die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:57 pm
Humans are really no different than anyother living creature on the planet. We just assume that they have limited intelligance and that we must resume control over them. Animals could just have a different way of showing their smarts that we just don't understand. We think they don't talk, but we really just don't speak their language. We think they don't make art, we just don't find the same beauty as them. We think they are just simple and unjust, but maybe it's us that are just unjust and to complex for the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:29 am
FrggysBabyGrl Humans are really no different than anyother living creature on the planet. We just assume that they have limited intelligance and that we must resume control over them. Animals could just have a different way of showing their smarts that we just don't understand. We think they don't talk, but we really just don't speak their language. We think they don't make art, we just don't find the same beauty as them. We think they are just simple and unjust, but maybe it's us that are just unjust and to complex for the world. Yah, preety much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:18 am
vorel_vargach FrggysBabyGrl Humans are really no different than anyother living creature on the planet. We just assume that they have limited intelligance and that we must resume control over them. Animals could just have a different way of showing their smarts that we just don't understand. We think they don't talk, but we really just don't speak their language. We think they don't make art, we just don't find the same beauty as them. We think they are just simple and unjust, but maybe it's us that are just unjust and to complex for the world. Yah, preety much
A few, at the peak of the animals pyramid, are intelligent. Pigs, dogs, dolphins. Advanced mammals. All of which have been shown time and time again to be inferior to humans (though, let me add, animals are not valueless) and as such, the supremacy of humaity is inarguable.
We are set aside by our power and our language. Our art and out literature. Fundamentally by the range, depth and complexity of our emotions.
We are the only creature able and willing to make big changes to improve and protect the environment. for all our errors, they are all more than counterbalanced by the above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:34 am
Invictus_88 We know they have limited intelligence, we can tell from the primitive arrangment of their brains, their reaction to basic cognitive testing and their reaction to situations of danger. Animals are mostly stupid. Totally stupid. Some, idiots savant. That is the way it seems to be. Invictus_88 A few, at the peak of the animals pyramid, are intelligent. Pigs, dogs, dolphins. Advanced mammals. All of which have been shown time and time again to be inferior to humans (though, let me add, animals are not valueless) and as such, the supremacy of humaity is inarguable. If by supreme you mean by all appearances smarter than any other being that we have incountered then yes we are "supreme". Invictus_88 We are set aside by our power and our language. Our art and out literature. Fundamentally by the range, depth and complexity of our emotions. umm... yes we are more powerful, more capable of complex communication, more Intelligent. My point is that this is a diffrence of degree not a diffrence of kind. We are in the end nothing more and nothing less than the smartest of animals. Invictus_88 We are the only creature able and willing to make big changes to improve and protect the environment. for all our errors, they are all more than counterbalanced by the above. This is another conversation entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:54 pm
vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We are set aside by our power and our language. Our art and out literature. Fundamentally by the range, depth and complexity of our emotions. umm... yes we are more powerful, more capable of complex communication, more Intelligent. My point is that this is a diffrence of degree not a diffrence of kind. We are in the end nothing more and nothing less than the smartest of animals.
Though, with the same fact that you can use to play down our importance, another can make person could judge humans the supreme power on earth, or even to a degree...demigods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:42 am
Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We are set aside by our power and our language. Our art and out literature. Fundamentally by the range, depth and complexity of our emotions. umm... yes we are more powerful, more capable of complex communication, more Intelligent. My point is that this is a diffrence of degree not a diffrence of kind. We are in the end nothing more and nothing less than the smartest of animals.
Though, with the same fact that you can use to play down our importance, another can make person could judge humans the supreme power on earth, or even to a degree...demigods.So I think we agree that humans are just animals. Right? But there seems to be another conversation going on here as well. It seems that you think that just beacuse we are the "strongest" animals we are within our right to do what ever we want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:27 pm
vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We are set aside by our power and our language. Our art and out literature. Fundamentally by the range, depth and complexity of our emotions. umm... yes we are more powerful, more capable of complex communication, more Intelligent. My point is that this is a diffrence of degree not a diffrence of kind. We are in the end nothing more and nothing less than the smartest of animals.
Though, with the same fact that you can use to play down our importance, another can make person could judge humans the supreme power on earth, or even to a degree...demigods.So I think we agree that humans are just animals. Right? But there seems to be another conversation going on here as well. It seems that you think that just beacuse we are the "strongest" animals we are within our right to do what ever we want.
For the sake of clarity, 'animals' fall between the microbial life and human life. Microbials are not animals, but the are organisms. Humans are animals, but they are not the same as animals.
Where animals are organisms+, we are animals+.
***
We are not simply the strongest, but the most able (indeed, the only able) to take responsibility for our actions, and for the consequenses of those actions.
Duty for the wellbeing of this planet thus falls to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:28 am
Invictus_88 vorel_vargach So I think we agree that humans are just animals. Right? But there seems to be another conversation going on here as well. It seems that you think that just beacuse we are the "strongest" animals we are within our right to do what ever we want. We are not "just animals". That diminishes us rather too much. We are organisms, creatures. How does being animals diminish us? Would you say that ants, bears, fish, and brids are just animals? Invictus_88 For the sake of clarity, 'animals' fall between the microbial life and human life. Microbials are not animals, but the are organisms. To be more clear there are 5 kingdoms of life. They are: Monera:bacteria Protista: Unicellular protozoans Fungus: fungus(example mushrooms) Plantae: plants (example flowers) Animal: animals (example humans) Invictus_88 Humans are animals, but they are not the same as animals. This is logical non-sense. Invictus_88 Where animals are organisms+, we are animals+. Animals are not organisms+ they are simply a type of organism. Humans are not animals+ they are simply a type of animal. Invictus_88 We are not simply the strongest, but the most able (indeed, the only able) to take responsibility for our actions, and for the consequenses of those actions. Prove to me that other animals are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. Invictus_88 Duty for the wellbeing of this planet thus falls to us. If that is the case then we are failing in that duty. All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:48 am
vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach So I think we agree that humans are just animals. Right? But there seems to be another conversation going on here as well. It seems that you think that just beacuse we are the "strongest" animals we are within our right to do what ever we want. We are not "just animals". That diminishes us rather too much. We are organisms, creatures. How does being animals diminish us? Would you say that ants, bears, fish, and brids are just animals? Invictus_88 For the sake of clarity, 'animals' fall between the microbial life and human life. Microbials are not animals, but the are organisms. To be more clear there are 5 kingdoms of life. They are: Monera:bacteria Protista: Unicellular protozoans Fungus: fungus(example mushrooms) Plantae: plants (example flowers) Animal: animals (example humans) Invictus_88 Humans are animals, but they are not the same as animals. This is logical non-sense. Invictus_88 Where animals are organisms+, we are animals+. Animals are not organisms+ they are simply a type of organism. Humans are not animals+ they are simply a type of animal. Invictus_88 We are not simply the strongest, but the most able (indeed, the only able) to take responsibility for our actions, and for the consequenses of those actions. Prove to me that other animals are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. Invictus_88 Duty for the wellbeing of this planet thus falls to us. If that is the case then we are failing in that duty. All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans.
In the same way, to call humans 'just animals' ignored our capacity for reason, for coscious change and our exceptional power over the world.
***
"Animal: animals (example humans)"
There is however a strong argument for humanity being to some degree in its own category.
***
Humans are animals, but they are not the same as just animals. Just as animals are organisms, but they are not the same as mere organisms.
***
"Animals are not organisms+ they are simply a type of organism.
Humans are not animals+ they are simply a type of animal."
Animals are still better/higher than base organisms.
Humans are still better/higher/more important than base animals.
***
How can animals take responsibility for their actions? They aren't even advanced enough to understand the concept of responsibility, let alone make themselves abide by it.
***
We aren't failing in our duty of care, we're making changes. not as fast as most would like, but that we can consciously change the world at all sets us above mere 'animal' status.
***
"All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans."
Kingdom? Not really, we are more like the cap-stone of the whole pyramid. Besides, it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:05 pm
Invictus_88 It ignores our superior qualities and abilities. It is a matter of relative merits. You are diminishing an animal rather too much if you refer to it as "just an organism", because most species of animals can to some extent think, and feel pain. Would you agree then that calling a bird just an animal diminishes it to much beacuse birds can fly and most animals can not? Invictus_88 In the same way, to call humans 'just animals' ignored our capacity for reason, for coscious change and our exceptional power over the world. No the only way I could be ignoring that is if I claimed that humans don't have those abilitys. However most animals do have those abilitys to some extent. We just happen to be the best at them. Saying that humans are a type of animal does nto diminish them it mearly classifies them. Animals are not by definition ignorant brutes. Invictus_88 " Animal: animals (example humans)" There is however a strong argument for humanity being to some degree in its own category. Yay I meant that to be Ironic. sweatdrop Since it is in fact what we are arruing about. Invictus_88 Humans are animals, but they are not the same as just animals. Just as animals are organisms, but they are not the same as mere organisms. Just as squares are rectangles but they are not the same as mere rectangles. This does not however mean that squares are better than rectangles. In fact I would make the arrgument that rectangles are better that squares since rectangles include squares and other shape in its catogory. Invictus_88 " Animals are not organisms+ they are simply a type of organism.
Humans are not animals+ they are simply a type of animal." Animals are still better/higher than base organisms. Humans are still better/higher/more important than base animals. Just as plants/fungi/protista/monera are better/higher than "base" organisms. Just as lions/ants/birds/whales are better/higher than "base" animals. Invictus_88 How can animals take responsibility for their actions? They aren't even advanced enough to understand the concept of responsibility, let alone make themselves abide by it. Sadly I am not an expert on animal behavior. But I do have a dog and when it does somthing it knows its not soppused to do it acts that way. I have a felling that there are many other animals that are capable of taking responsibility for there actions. Invictus_88 We aren't failing in our duty of care, we're making changes. not as fast as most would like, but that we can consciously change the world at all sets us above mere 'animal' status. Every thing that exists "changes" the world in one way or another. But more importantly you seem to think that power implys duty. I would like to see you explain way this is the case. Invictus_88 " All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans." Kingdom? Not really, we are more like the cap-stone of the whole pyramid. Besides, it makes sense. THERE IS NO PYRAMID!!! Have you ever seen a evoloutionary tree? The creatures at the top are not better than the ones on the bottom. They are just better suited to the speicialized role and environment that they have adopted. We seem to be talking past each other here. My claims summarized. 1. Humans are a type of animal. 2. Humans are as far as we can tell the smartest living things that exist. 3. Being the smartest does not make us the best. 4. Power does not nessasaraly imply responsibility or rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:04 pm
vorel_vargach Would you agree then that calling a bird just an animal diminishes it to much beacuse birds can fly and most animals can not? vorel_vargach Invictus_88 In the same way, to call humans 'just animals' ignored our capacity for reason, for conscious change and our exceptional power over the world. No the only way I could be ignoring that is if I claimed that humans don't have those abilitys. However most animals do have those abilitys to some extent. We just happen to be the best at them. Saying that humans are a type of animal does nto diminish them it mearly classifies them. Animals are not by definition ignorant brutes. vorel_vargach Invictus_88 Humans are animals, but they are not the same as just animals. Just as animals are organisms, but they are not the same as mere organisms. Just as squares are rectangles but they are not the same as mere rectangles. This does not however mean that squares are better than rectangles. In fact I would make the arrgument that rectangles are better that squares since rectangles include squares and other shape in its catogory. vorel_vargach Invictus_88 " Animals are not organisms+ they are simply a type of organism.
Humans are not animals+ they are simply a type of animal." Animals are still better/higher than base organisms. Humans are still better/higher/more important than base animals. Just as plants/fungi/protista/monera are better/higher than "base" organisms. Just as lions/ants/birds/whales are better/higher than "base" animals. vorel_vargach Invictus_88 How can animals take responsibility for their actions? They aren't even advanced enough to understand the concept of responsibility, let alone make themselves abide by it. Sadly I am not an expert on animal behavior. But I do have a dog and when it does somthing it knows its not soppused to do it acts that way. I have a felling that there are many other animals that are capable of taking responsibility for there actions. vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We aren't failing in our duty of care, we're making changes. not as fast as most would like, but that we can consciously change the world at all sets us above mere 'animal' status. Every thing that exists "changes" the world in one way or another. But more importantly you seem to think that power implys duty. I would like to see you explain way this is the case.
We are the sole species to have the power to save or destroy the world. If we fail in protecting the world, we will face extinction. It is in our best interests to protect ourselves from extinction, and to protect the world of the enjoyment of subsequent generations. Therein lies our duty.vorel_vargach Invictus_88 " All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans." Kingdom? Not really, we are more like the cap-stone of the whole pyramid. Besides, it makes sense. THERE IS NO PYRAMID!!! Have you ever seen a evoloutionary tree? The creatures at the top are not better than the ones on the bottom. They are just better suited to the speicialized role and environment that they have adopted. vorel_vargach 1. Humans are a type of animal. 2. Humans are as far as we can tell the smartest living things that exist. 3. Being the smartest does not make us the best. 4. Power does not nessasaraly imply responsibility or rights.
Why does power not necessarily involve responsibilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:15 pm
Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Would you agree then that calling a bird just an animal diminishes it to much beacuse birds can fly and most animals can not? And the fundamental diffrence between animals and humans is? Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 In the same way, to call humans 'just animals' ignored our capacity for reason, for conscious change and our exceptional power over the world. No the only way I could be ignoring that is if I claimed that humans don't have those abilitys. However most animals do have those abilitys to some extent. We just happen to be the best at them. Saying that humans are a type of animal does nto diminish them it mearly classifies them. Animals are not by definition ignorant brutes. So you want me to show that animals have some degree of reason, conscious change and power over the world? I think our first step has to be defining just what those things are. Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 How can animals take responsibility for their actions? They aren't even advanced enough to understand the concept of responsibility, let alone make themselves abide by it. Sadly I am not an expert on animal behavior. But I do have a dog and when it does somthing it knows its not soppused to do it acts that way. I have a felling that there are many other animals that are capable of taking responsibility for there actions. Are you trying to say that people do things that they know they should not do for reasons besides the ones you mentioned? If you are prove it beacuse I do not believe it. Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We aren't failing in our duty of care, we're making changes. not as fast as most would like, but that we can consciously change the world at all sets us above mere 'animal' status. Every thing that exists "changes" the world in one way or another. But more importantly you seem to think that power implys duty. I would like to see you explain way this is the case.
We are the sole species to have the power to save or destroy the world. If we fail in protecting the world, we will face extinction. It is in our best interests to protect ourselves from extinction, and to protect the world of the enjoyment of subsequent generations. Therein lies our duty.Just beacuse you can do something does not mean you should. Just beacuse you are the only one that can do something does not mean that you should. Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 " All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans." Kingdom? Not really, we are more like the cap-stone of the whole pyramid. Besides, it makes sense. THERE IS NO PYRAMID!!! Have you ever seen a evoloutionary tree? The creatures at the top are not better than the ones on the bottom. They are just better suited to the speicialized role and environment that they have adopted. Yes we are more powerfull and more intellegent that does not make us more important. Invictus_88 vorel_vargach 1. Humans are a type of animal. 2. Humans are as far as we can tell the smartest living things that exist. 3. Being the smartest does not make us the best. 4. Power does not nessasaraly imply responsibility or rights.
Why does power not necessarily involve responsibilities?We can not do everything that the animals of the world can do. How does power necessarily involve responsibilities. It is not the place of the most powerfull to decide how,when and where the week shall die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:04 am
vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Would you agree then that calling a bird just an animal diminishes it to much beacuse birds can fly and most animals can not? And the fundamental diffrence between animals and humans is? vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 In the same way, to call humans 'just animals' ignored our capacity for reason, for conscious change and our exceptional power over the world. No the only way I could be ignoring that is if I claimed that humans don't have those abilitys. However most animals do have those abilitys to some extent. We just happen to be the best at them. Saying that humans are a type of animal does nto diminish them it mearly classifies them. Animals are not by definition ignorant brutes. So you want me to show that animals have some degree of reason, conscious change and power over the world? I think our first step has to be defining just what those things are.
Is it not clear?vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 How can animals take responsibility for their actions? They aren't even advanced enough to understand the concept of responsibility, let alone make themselves abide by it. Sadly I am not an expert on animal behavior. But I do have a dog and when it does somthing it knows its not soppused to do it acts that way. I have a felling that there are many other animals that are capable of taking responsibility for there actions. Are you trying to say that people do things that they know they should not do for reasons besides the ones you mentioned? If you are prove it beacuse I do not believe it.
It is well known, indeed..some people have killed simply to know what it is like. Or to prove their freedom. This sort of decision is best exemplified in Camus' "The Stranger" by Mersault's motiveless murder of an anonymous arab.vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 We aren't failing in our duty of care, we're making changes. not as fast as most would like, but that we can consciously change the world at all sets us above mere 'animal' status. Every thing that exists "changes" the world in one way or another. But more importantly you seem to think that power implys duty. I would like to see you explain way this is the case.
We are the sole species to have the power to save or destroy the world. If we fail in protecting the world, we will face extinction. It is in our best interests to protect ourselves from extinction, and to protect the world of the enjoyment of subsequent generations. Therein lies our duty.Just beacuse you can do something does not mean you should. Just beacuse you are the only one that can do something does not mean that you should.
However if we can do good, we probably should. And if we are the only people who can do good, then certainly so.vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach Invictus_88 " All in all it seems like you want to create a new kingdom of organisms specifically for humans." Kingdom? Not really, we are more like the cap-stone of the whole pyramid. Besides, it makes sense. THERE IS NO PYRAMID!!! Have you ever seen a evoloutionary tree? The creatures at the top are not better than the ones on the bottom. They are just better suited to the speicialized role and environment that they have adopted. Yes we are more powerfull and more intellegent that does not make us more important. vorel_vargach Invictus_88 vorel_vargach 1. Humans are a type of animal. 2. Humans are as far as we can tell the smartest living things that exist. 3. Being the smartest does not make us the best. 4. Power does not nessasaraly imply responsibility or rights.
Why does power not necessarily involve responsibilities?We can not do everything that the animals of the world can do. How does power necessarily involve responsibilities. It is not the place of the most powerfull to decide how,when and where the week shall die.
Power gives control. Necessarily. Control gives responsibility. Necessarily.
No, it isn't. It is the place of the most intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
