Humanitisherologisticpatheosis
- Thread starter ioxles
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Right. Philosophy time. I'm going with the morals thing, an acute sense of right and wrong above simple reward and punishment behaviour, based on an empathy for our fellow man. When we lose that we lose our humanity.
Surely morals can be taught to any creature, I have never thought empathy was a purely human trait.lostclause said:
Take motherly instinct inherent in many animals, or packs or groups of animals that form complex relationships similar to those in human societies. Empathy, dependence, anger, love; all of these can be seen in creatures far removed from humanity.
There's the same arguments running here that usually do, definitional vs aspirational.
Definitional answers are fine, but they are seldom complete, and rarely cover what the asker intended (without elaboration). But since this is a message board we'll have to stomach countless replies that add nothing save the lingering after taste of the posters self-satisfaction with their wittiness.
I prefer the idea of the aspirational notion of man, but its always flawed. What is it to be one, are there moral/ethical components, is it purely biological? If we attempt to bring these into an acceptable form to everyone the answer is usually so distilled as to be of no explanatory use.
Because of this I see the definition of man as a personal one. Find out what it means to you personally, try to judge others fairly on it, then stop worrying about it an go out and enjoy life!
Definitional answers are fine, but they are seldom complete, and rarely cover what the asker intended (without elaboration). But since this is a message board we'll have to stomach countless replies that add nothing save the lingering after taste of the posters self-satisfaction with their wittiness.
I prefer the idea of the aspirational notion of man, but its always flawed. What is it to be one, are there moral/ethical components, is it purely biological? If we attempt to bring these into an acceptable form to everyone the answer is usually so distilled as to be of no explanatory use.
Because of this I see the definition of man as a personal one. Find out what it means to you personally, try to judge others fairly on it, then stop worrying about it an go out and enjoy life!
Worst. Answer. Ever.dogstile said:
If you can think about this question, you're human and alive.
It's like the old "everyone who isn't here, raise your hand" quip.
It's like the old "everyone who isn't here, raise your hand" quip.
Philosophy hat doesn't fit well when tired...ioxles said:
Like I said, only through punishment and reward or distilled by evolution. Arguably many of our morals come from that too (see the Selfish Gene for more, but be wary).
Empathy to close kin is one thing (and in any small group they are all likely to be related). Empathy to unrelated or even radically different humans is another (i.e. racially different, I think it's a reason why racism is so widespread). Evolution says to distrust differences but overcoming this and judging people by there own merits and feeling compassion for others, this is our measure of humanity. Overcoming base and harmful instincts to value people as individuals. Once we've got that much of the other stuff falls into place.
*places philosophy hat on nightstand* that might be all from me tonight.
who knows, maybe existence is beyond our comprehension, maybe the reason is that we think so complex when the answer isn't, creating loops where none were meant to exist
i believe that it's hard to find answers because of the way we look, label and associate things on a subconscious level before we've even realised we have .. before we can figure anything out we have to first figure ourselves out .. so read back for a second, where i said labels .. if at this moment everyone's minds were taken back to square 1 (baby) they begin to programme their minds according to environment, but there wasn't one, floating in white what would become of our species subconscious? it's unclear but it proves one thing it's that we depend on surroundings not to exist, but to create an existence of our own, we're in tune with what we inhabit so our minds will never allow us to know otherwise .. so in trying to understand something beyond, our minds trick us back to the only thing we can comprehend .. our surroundings ..
i believe that it's hard to find answers because of the way we look, label and associate things on a subconscious level before we've even realised we have .. before we can figure anything out we have to first figure ourselves out .. so read back for a second, where i said labels .. if at this moment everyone's minds were taken back to square 1 (baby) they begin to programme their minds according to environment, but there wasn't one, floating in white what would become of our species subconscious? it's unclear but it proves one thing it's that we depend on surroundings not to exist, but to create an existence of our own, we're in tune with what we inhabit so our minds will never allow us to know otherwise .. so in trying to understand something beyond, our minds trick us back to the only thing we can comprehend .. our surroundings ..
Sorry to nit pick by most of what you've mentioned are emotions not morals. I guess the key difference is the notion of why. Emotions do not have to be explained they simply are. But without a reason why or why not, a moral cannot be truly 'moral'.ioxles said:
E.g. It is wrong to kill others = moral
Don't kill others = statement, there is no reason, simply imperative.
Seems fine to me since he was quoting me and I mentioned both morals and empathy ( which whilst not an emotion itself is very much tied in with them)Eskay said:
Err, humans don't have an exoskeleton outside of mechwarrior. I think that it's only insects who have a chitin exoskeleton (and probably something like sea urchins but I can't think of the name for that group)Zenode said:
And how many cells do you have? If it's the exact same number as me it'll be a miracle.space_oddity said:
And if you mean chromosones we have the same number as the fruit fly and people with down's syndrome have an extra (partial) one. Does that make them sub human or super human?
That is a very flawed argument. It's simply wrong. You lose cells everytime you touch something. Typing a response will cost you your humanity. Don't do it!
Human aesthetic, human look whatever you want to call itlostclause said:
Just the way humans look on the outside is what i was getting at
So your both saying if a human is made up of 1,000,000 cells and something else with 1,000,000 cells has the same "form" as a human is...a human,space_oddity said:
What if something that can take human form with 1,000,000 cells that might be something that originally look like a blob. Is THAT human, because really thats what your saying.
Oh, right. Exoskeleton means a support system that is outside your body. Our support is our bones which, unless you're Alex Mercer, should not be visible. It's not about looks.Zenode said:
AAAAHHHH!!! I can't escape the NGE/Dr.Manhattan philosophies! All I can say is I think therefore I am.
Im sorry if i said exoskeleton dont go all mr scientific on me.lostclause said:
If its not looks what is it about?
so your saying that if The thing below had morals it would be human?? no you would look at how the thing looks and if it had the same basic aesthetic as a person you would instantly in your head go "look a human" not "lets examine this things morals to determine it"
To be human is to err. To be imperfect and yet perfect. We are flawed and yet astoundingly brilliant. We have potential beyond imagining yet we waste it without thought. We could accomplish any goal we set our minds on... The only limit is our imagination. A thing that is unbound and infinite. ;P
