"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

[littlebabyjesus]

And where in our "genome" is the clear and unambiguous, scientific answer for this?

Where in an elephant's genome is the clear and unambiguous answer to explain its reaction to the death of a comrade?

You seem to have a weird idea of what I think here.

 

[gorski]

Answer the fucking questions or stop trolling!!!!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Answer the fucking questions or stop trolling!!!!

My question was my answer. Think about it.

 

[gorski]

For an umpteenth time? No, thanx

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Arguing with a true believer in human exceptionalism [whether or not they're religious or scientific human exceptionalists], is like arguing with some Americans about their belief that the USA is the greatest country in the world.

They cannot be convinced otherwise.


Imo it's part of their psychological structure, and for them to accept that they might be wrong, would bring on a personality crisis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For an umpteenth time? No, thanx

Ok, I'm clearly being too subtle for you. Where in an elephant's genome is its reaction to the death of a comrade? It's a ridiculous reductionist question. As has been pointed out to you already, your simplistic idea that people like me here are biological determinists of some kind is wrong, but I extend that way of thinking beyond humans. Not to do so is a really bad mistake.

In short, humans are not the only animals that are a 'who' as well as a 'what'.

 

[ffsear]

Oh, c'mon, LBJ: which animal is concerned by its own actions which can potentially extinguishing other species (communicating globally and intergenerationally is essential here, when it comes to understanding what we do and then planning to avoid destructive outcomes)? Which animal is concerned with potential consequences of our actions today for umpteen generations to come? Which animal is capable of radically changing its social relations? Where in the Animal Kingdom did you see Revolution happen? Which animal has morals in the Modern sense of the word? Which animal creates legal constructs based on equaliberty? Which animal does what we do, when we are at our best, creative, imaginative, freedom loving, emancipatory leaning, reflective, not acting out of necessity and even against our immediate interest (self-active, I guess is a good word for this) etc. etc.?!?!?!?!?!?

And where in our "genome" is the clear and unambiguous, scientific answer for this?

At which point exactly did we break away from the animal kingdom?

 

[gorski]

We have, ffs. Period.

Johnny, I can not but notice that you are trying to take the high ground, whilst trying to take that very possibility away from others. What you are doing is good/cool/natural/scientifically superior - but don't even try to do as I do... Nice...

LBJ, you are the crudest of primitive materialists ever. (You too subtle.... Yachhhh!!!! )

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think I agree with whomever has said that this is in essence a philosophical choice. There is scientific evidence out there that can be used to bolster either position. I think we choose one or the other side because of our individual intrinsic makeup - ie who we are determines how we choose; as opposed to making an objective choice that then helps shape who we are.

I was a little bit unfair in the post above: those who don't agree with human exceptionalism are probably just as wedded to their position, and some sort of hard incontrovertible proof of human exceptionalism [whatever form that might take] would likely mean a time of intense soul searching for them, as well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

LBJ, you are the crudest of primitive materialists ever. (You too subtle.... Yachhhh!!!! )

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm saying pretty much the exact opposite of what you think I'm saying.

When lots of different people tell you that you've misunderstood what they're saying, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you've misunderstood what they're saying.

 

[gorski]

No, I am not. I answer, you do not. End of.

 

[gorski]

I think I agree with whomever has said that this is in essence a philosophical choice. There is scientific evidence out there that can be used to bolster either position.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for morality or revolution, for instance. Or creativity, imagination etc. etc. Science (as in "natural" science) can say fuck all of our legal, moral etc. constructs.

I think we choose one or the other side because of our individual intrinsic makeup - ie who we are determines how we choose;

That is classical Fichte...

as opposed to making an objective choice that then helps shape who we are.

"Objective" how?

I was a little bit unfair in the post above: those who don't agree with human exceptionalism are probably just as wedded to their position, and some sort of hard incontrovertible proof of human exceptionalism [whatever form that might take] would likely mean a time of intense soul searching for them, as well.

If only they needed to do so...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, I am not. I answer, you do not. End of.

You do not endear yourself to people with this kind of arrogance.

If you wish to demonstrate that you have understood, explain to me why you think I mentioned elephants and their reaction to death. You should be able to do so in a single sentence. To be clear, I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking you to show that you understand what I am saying.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That is classical Fichte...

No, it's me. I said it, in that post above.

 

[Supine]

Sorry gorski, simple fact is you're just another animal.

Not a particularly interesting one, although admittedly you are quite special.

 

[Boyo]

A geneticist's view of things... But revealing, since going into culture... eventually... mind, via "genes", surprise, surprise...



Please, stay on the topic.

My first thought was, "Why ask the question?" If the answer is "Yes", what more can be said? If the answer is "No", then what is he? If I was asked, I'd answer, "Yes, but with unique characteristics". But then, the same thing can be said of every other animal, too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for morality or revolution, for instance. Or creativity, imagination etc. etc. Science (as in "natural" science) can say fuck all of our legal, moral etc. constructs.
..

This is not true at all. Science can say a lot about how we develop as moral beings (the evidence being that we are born pre-prepared to look for a thing like morality, just as we're born pre-prepared to look for a thing like language), and very probably about the structures that our morality typically forms. We have evolved to be moral beings, and there is potentially a great deal we can say about that. Pretty sure we went over this ground on the binned thread.

You declare with great confidence what is and isn't the realm of science while knowing nothing about it. Same way that you declare with great confidence what other animals are and are not capable of while displaying no evidence of ever having paid attention to the behaviour of other animals in your life.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

very probably about the structures that our morality typically forms.

What does that mean?

Science probably will be able to do that in future; or maybe it can do it now, and you're just uncertain of whether that's a fact or not?

 

[gorski]

You do not endear yourself to people with this kind of arrogance.

Not popular? Wow! (Grow up... really...)

If you wish to demonstrate that you have understood, explain to me why you think I mentioned elephants and their reaction to death. You should be able to do so in a single sentence. To be clear, I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking you to show that you understand what I am saying.

Parroting, anthropomorphising, desperately trying... Bah!

No, it's me. I said it, in that post above.

Sure, you may not know it but there it is. Take it from me. I know.

Sorry gorski, simple fact is you're just another animal.

Maybe you are. I am not. Thanx. Learn to speak in your own name.

Not a particularly interesting one, although admittedly you are quite special.

There is nothing more interesting than Humans on this planet. Infinitely more complex than anything else Nature came up with. And thank you. I guess...

This is not true at all. Science can say a lot about how we develop as moral beings (the evidence being that we are born pre-prepared to look for a thing like morality, just as we're born pre-prepared to look for a thing like language), and very probably about the structures that our morality typically forms. We have evolved to be moral beings, and there is potentially a great deal we can say about that. Pretty sure we went over this ground on the binned thread.

OK, YOU - personally - have not a bloody clue what morality is. Period. Dark. Complete darkness. Not debating any of it with you any more. Waste of time. Because you "think" you know everything about something you have obviously not studied at all. And if you have - what a failure! Spectacular!

You declare with great confidence what is and isn't the realm of science while knowing nothing about it. Same way that you declare with great confidence what other animals are and are not capable of while displaying no evidence of ever having paid attention to the behaviour of other animals in your life.

I am a teacher, amongst other things, who has been trained in philosophy and methodology of science. I guess, a wild guess from what I saw you scribble on the subject, I am infinitely more qualified on the subject than you are on Philosophy.

What does that mean?

Science probably will be able to do that in future; or maybe it can do it now, and you're just uncertain of whether that's a fact or not?

Indeed.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sure, you may not know it but there it is. Take it from me. I know.

Great. But until you namedropped his name, I'd never heard of him, and had read nothing by him. So whatever I said, was my own original thought [original to me, at least]. Maybe this other fellow said something similar, which wouldn't be surprising. There isn't much that's new under the sun.

May I make a suggestion? Rather than saying 'that's straight out of Fichte' or whatever, say 'that idea is consistent to ideas from the German Idealists', or something like that. Such a comment helps promote discussion, and doesn't come across so much as an annoying name drop of a philosopher so obscure that most people won't have heard of him before. [I certainly hadn't; and I obtained a degree in Philosophy way back when - but at least 100 years after Fichte's time.]

Remember Einstein's saying. Keep it simple for your audience. It promotes discussion, and is in fact a better display of your intellectual command of the material, than the crude name-drop.

 

[gorski]

That speaks of the context - not hearing of Fichte, Kant's successor, while being a philosopher... Not saying anything of you!

KISS for colleagues is really insulting, I would have thought... But OK...

If you are interested, I really didn't think of it in any other way but as a compliment (Fichte just came to mind, naturally, since that one is quite famous...). But...

P.S. "Name dropping" - what a cr@p expression, straight outta anti-intellectual society (which one did you grow and study in, please?), especially with internet at our fingertips, debating online, it's just 1 tab and a few letters typing away...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hard to know on the faceless nameless internet who's a colleague, though. For instance, you point out a couple of posts up that your philosophical expertise is way above that of LBJ. If so, there's not much point in talking in the same jargon one would use with a Philosophy Phd.

The name dropping comment comes from an observation first made at university.

People go to university for lots of reasons, and sometimes multiple reasons. Some people study out of a love of learning. Some want to get tools for a job. etc etc. I came across a different motivation there, that I hadn't really encountered before: people who study in order to gain the tools to prove their cleverness to others.

There's always lots of discussing at university, and sometimes, you'd get the person who seemed to be not so much discussing, as regurgitating lessons. Their discourse was dense and complex, but one eventually formed the impression that they hadn't truly internalized and synthesized the information. They had all the information, and could spew it out with alacrity - but they didn't seem able to take it to the next level. It's like they doubted their own intellectual abilities in the face of other students, so they studied extra hard and packed their heads with facts and other people's theories.

People like that always loved to name drop.

I'm not saying you're one of those people, but ever since those early experiences, I've always looked askance at name droppers. It's not anti intellectual at all: it's the opposite. It's an appreciation for those who have truly synthesized what they've learned, and can use their command of the subject matter, to make understandable explanations.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm going to get this book:

Man is an animal. The upshot of the modern body of work called
ethology, of Lionel Tiger, Robin Fox, Konrad Lorenz, and a host of
others, is that it reminds us of the basic human condition: that
man is first and and foremost an animal moving about on a planet
shining in the sun. Whatever else he is, is built on this. The argu-
ment of these people is that we shall never understand man if we
do not begin with his animal nature. And this is truly basic. The
only certain thing we know about this planet is that it is a theater
for crawling life, organismic life, and at least we know what or-
ganisms are and what they are trying to do.

At its most elemental level the human organism, like crawling life,
has a mouth, digestive tract, and anus, a skin to keep it intact, and
appendages with which to acquire food. Existence, for all organis-
mic life, is a constant struggle to feed — a struggle to incorporate
whatever other organisms they can fit into their mouths and press
down their gullets without choking. Seen in these stark terms, life
on this planet is a gory spectacle, a science-fiction nightmare in
which digestive tracts fitted with teeth at one end are tearing away
at whatever flesh they can reach, and at the other end are piling up
the fuming waste excrement as they move along in search of more
flesh.

Full text of "Escape From Evil Ernest Becker"

 

[mojo pixy]

Because you "think" you know everything about something you have obviously not studied at all. And if you have - what a failure! Spectacular!

You are Donald Trump and I claim my $5

 

[fredfelt]

For a insights into other animals, and of course what humans can learn from these insights, there's a couple of writers I'd recommend

John Gray - I really enjoyed his 'The silence of Animals'. He's a book reviewer for the New Statesman and his latest column touches on what we can learn from how cats approach life .

What cats can teach us about how to live

Jonathan Balcombe, his book 'Second nature, the inner lives of animals'. Just found this blog of his, I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it

The Inner Lives of Animals

"
About The Inner Lives of Animals
These are exciting times for the study of animal behavior. A week scarcely passes without some new discovery about dog fairness, fish cognition, or pig pessimism. Some of my blog posts aim to make this information accessible to readers and browsers. Others take on abuses and misconceptions of animals. All of my writings are designed to elevate my primary clients--the animals themselves.
"

 

[fredfelt]

You can get Jonathan Balcombe's 'Second nature, the inner lives of animals' second hand, for a penny, plus postage, from a popular on-line retailer!

 

[TruXta]

Gorky, you being such an eminent philosopher have surely heard of appeal to authority? That's all you're doing, Fichte this, Gadamer that. It's weak. SAD!

 

[maomao]

gorski

You appear to have lost the argument. You haven't managed to persuade a single person that the answer to the question of whether or not human beings are animals is 'no' rather than 'yes'. You may well believe you are correct but over two threads you have failed to convince a single other person of your point of view. So either you're wrong and man is an animal, or you're doing something wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am a teacher, amongst other things, who has been trained in philosophy and methodology of science.

You have been trained in the philosophy and methodology of science?

Wow.