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

[gorski]

Btw, you guys here are not that unique: I remember having to correct my "senior philosophy lecturer" at a Uni re. the difference between civilisation and culture, which she was blissfully unaware of and categorically denied it... oych...

Or what a critically minded Anglo-Saxon scientists once said: most research today in Anglo-American world presumes that only English exists and only what is published in English is relevant. Most scientists in this sphere do not speak any other language well enough to be able to follow the research being done in, say Germany, Russia and so on, unless they published in English".

So, when one presses the differences between the "Continental" and "Anglo-Saxon" philosophy on top of all that - phhroaaarrr!!!

Now, here we have some probably well meaning people who think I am somehow trying to demean the Animal Kingdom and thereby justify doing the most terrible things to it (which is idiotic, but there we are), so they are trying to be "mindful of the other", not letting me be allegedly unaware of 'the other' and hence 'inconsiderate' etc. All very groovy! On the other hand, the same is true when it comes to you guys not being aware of other traditions, whether country-wise, language-wise or "department" wise (you can't really think philosophically, that's for sure). But that is OK, because it's you, as a herd and I am just one, so you needn't be as "considerate"...

Just for starters....

 

[Knotted]

Klassical K!!! (Now, now, I didn't say classy! ) Luv it! You're a troll's troll!!!

Here is a little teaser...

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals

He asks us to view morality as a ‘moral organ', ‘equivalent to the elephant's nose: enormous, powerful, multifaceted'.

Alright. Biological reductionism exists. I'll grant you that. It doesn't exist on this thread or on the previous one (to my memory), but out there are people who think like this.

Perhaps you might consider a third possibility - that it is hard to demark exactly what is unique about humans and battling strawmen with their 'moral organs' doesn't help you. And perhaps you might consider the possibility that any success in demarking exactly what is unique may not tell us very much at all about our humanity. Perhaps you might consider that demarkations are inherently arbitrary in evolution. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that humans are profoundly different from other animals even if we cannot find any demarkations. Perhaps you might consider that humans are still animals even if they are profoundly different to other animals. Perhaps you might consider that biological determinism does not work for cats any more than it works for humans - are there moral organs in the limbic systems of cats?

Try it. How can it hurt you?

 

[weltweit]

I don't see the point of this argument. To my way of thinking human beings are animals that have managed by dint of evolutionary advantages, notably tool making, to have become the apex creature on planet earth.

 

[Knotted]

,

 

[Knotted]

,

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Here is a little teaser...

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals

Interesting article, but her ideas on empathy are inconsistent with learning advances occurring after she wrote her piece in 2011 - as evidenced by this article in the same publication, two years later:

The Neuroscience of Empathy

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't understand the benefit of the argument that humans have transcended the animal kingdom. Is it a philosophical question or just a semantic one?
Other animals don't care how we classify ourselves. It's no skin off their noses, so what remains is how it benefits ourselves. I just can't see the benefit of deciding we have transcended our biology to become something more than animals. In my opinion, it's merely a poetic notion, and can only help bolster the idea that we are so separate from the rest of the animal kingdom that we have no responsibility towards it and the rest of the ecosystem.
I'm aware of the stewardship argument from Christians and other theists, and am unaware of gorski 's faith. I would be interested to find this out.

 

[danny la rouge]

I didn't want to comment before watching the lecture. Finally got round to that today, and found it reasonably interesting, so that was worthwhile.

First thing to say is that he doesn't answer the question, if, that is, one makes the assumption that the question hinges on the word "Just".

He does of course illustrate that humans are not other animals. But this is uncontroversial. Humans are of course not other animals, just as snails are not other animals.

Jones, being a snail specialist, would be able to deliver an illuminating lecture on the ways that snails differ from other animals. I might even watch it. He's an entertaining speaker.

But the word "just", in the case of snails, would not be used. I wonder if this "just" is justified merely by our ability to use language. I'm not convinced it is.

Jones discusses human jaw musculature, and how it differs from other primates. He uses it to introduce the well-known chicken-and-egg conundrum of cooking and brain size. We have a large brain powered by our ability to cook/other animals do not cook because they don't have the mental ability to do so. So, yes, as far as we know we are the only currently living species that cooks (to any great degree: some other animals do leave foodstuffs to ferment). But he quite rightly points out that if cooking is indeed the cause of brain size growth, then our pre-homo sapiens ancestors must have cooked in order for the brain size change to happen. And indeed the evidence suggests they did.

So cooking is something only currently unique to our species. Our ancestors also did it.

Gorski suggests that as well as being the only cooking species, we're the only historic species. If we define historic as being since the inception of written records, then I have no problem with that being something that marks us out from other animals. However I would have a problem with it being a necessary condition for inclusion in our species, since that would mean that we became human only when records began. We'd then have another chicken-and-egg situation of this emergence into history.

There is nothing in Jones' address to support Gorski's idea that humans are non-animal. There are plenty of illustrations of how we differ from others. But since we'd need to in order to be considered a distinct species, I don't find that a proposition of any startling or revelatory nature.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's not so much a question of the benefit: questioning things arises from the spirit of inquiry that underlies science.

 

[fredfelt]

Klassical K!!! (Now, now, I didn't say classy! ) Luv it! You're a troll's troll!!!

Here is a little teaser...

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals

Morality, in this case displayed through spontaneous altruistic behaviour has been recognised in other animals.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.

 

[Knotted]

I don't understand the benefit of the argument that humans have transcended the animal kingdom. Is it a philosophical question or just a semantic one?
Other animals don't care how we classify ourselves. It's no skin off their noses, so what remains is how it benefits ourselves. I just can't see the benefit of deciding we have transcended our biology to become something more than animals. In my opinion, it's merely a poetic notion, and can only help bolster the idea that we are so separate from the rest of the animal kingdom that we have no responsibility towards it and the rest of the ecosystem.
I'm aware of the stewardship argument from Christians and other theists, and am unaware of gorski 's faith. I would be interested to find this out.

The benefit is that gorski can decide that certain people are not worthy of human status.

 

[gorski]

No, Danny. Historic in philosophical sense, nothing to do with writing - and that shows just how huge differences mentioned earlier are...

Btw, SJ mentions many characteristics which we have and animals do not, please have another look...

 

[Knotted]

No, Danny. Historic in philosophical sense, nothing to do with writing - and that shows just how huge differences mentioned earlier are...

Btw, SJ mentions many characteristics which we have and animals do not, please have another look...

DLR has misunderstood you but his argument still applies. Look at the logic.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, Danny. Historic in philosophical sense, nothing to do with writing - and that shows just how huge differences mentioned earlier are...

Can you define for me this philosophical sense of the concept "history"?

Btw, SJ mentions many characteristics which we have and animals do not, please have another look...

I don't need to have another look, I fully appreciate that he gave several examples in his hour long lecture that I haven't mentioned. Are there any in particular that you would like to discuss?

 

[Orang Utan]

The benefit is that gorski can decide that certain people are not worthy of human status.

Well he does seem to like characterising anyone who disagrees with him as feeble minded, declaring them to be beneath him. How telling.

 

[Knotted]

Well he does seem to like characterising anyone who disagrees with him as feeble minded, declaring them to be beneath him. How telling.

He has said it literally.

 

[gorski]

The benefit is that gorski can decide that certain people are not worthy of human status.

Nonsense. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not, for instance, a genocidal maniac etc. etc. is a Human Being or not. On top of that, we, as a society, get to judge him/her, too - if and when... But that is another sphere of specific Human activity. And so on.

In effect, it is precisely in this sphere of freedom (morality) that we rise or fall as Humans.

SJ can't go there, of course - but I can...

 

[Orang Utan]

Nonsense. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not, for instance, a genocidal maniac etc. etc. is a Human Being or not

No they don't. Human beings commit genocide. A human being does not cease to become one just because their behaviour is abhorrent to other humans.

 

[Knotted]

Nonsense. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not, for instance, a genocidal maniac etc. etc. is a Human Being or not. On top of that, we, as a society, get to judge him/her, too - if and when... But that is another sphere of specific Human activity. And so on.

In effect, it is precisely in this sphere of freedom (morality) that we rise or fall as Humans.

SJ can't go there, of course - but I can...

No we don't get to decide that. People who think genocidal maniacs are not human are just wrong. It's a false biological thesis, and a false historical thesis too.

See Raul Hilberg here:

Adolf Hitler himself, and nobody reads Mein Kampf, makes a statement that his father would not be an anti-Semite because it would degrade him socially. Nietzsche’s sister married an anti-Semitic leader and he referred in letters to his sister in the whole correspondence “to your anti-Semitic husband.” Now, you can see that anti-Semitism was somewhat correlated with some backward glance. It belongs to the nineteenth century with its other “-isms,” with imperialism, with colonialism, with racism. It sounds bizarre if I tell you that the Nazis did not call themselves anti-Semites. You do not even find the word.

Q: Really?

Hilberg: Yes, there was a sense that Nazism was something new. The anti-Semite had stopped at a certain point; the anti-Semite could talk about eliminating Jews, but did not know how to do it. The anti-Semite did not have the power, the anti-Semite was a propagandist. The Nazis were serious and this was a far different proposition. When you see the actual legislation in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere that states that it is criminal to deny that there was a Holocaust, it is because these governments have to distance themselves from Nazism. Nowadays of course Nazism and anti-Semitism are conflated into one kind of ideology, but it is a different phenomenon. There was an extreme anti-Semitic newspaper in Germany, Der Stürmer, which was published by Julius Streicher. I do not remember now whether it was Höss, the Auschwitz commander, or somebody else who was asked, “Did you read Der Stürmer?” He said, basically, “Look, I’m a lieutenant colonel of the SS, I wouldn’t be caught dead reading Der Stürmer.” It was like reading the lowest of the low gossip rags in the United States. There was an issue of social standing.

RAUL HILBERG -- IS THERE A NEW ANTI-SEMITISM? A CONVERSATION WITH RAUL HILBERG -- LOGOS 6.1-2 WINTER-SPRING 2007

Morality, sophistication, education and social standing are integral parts of genocide. It's a very human activity.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I don't see the point of this argument.

It's nothing more than another pile of arse dribble from gorski to show us all how clever his is, how much his insight on the world elevates him above all the plebs.

He had to correct his university lecturer, don't you know. That's how clever he is.

 

[Knotted]

It's nothing more than another pile of arse dribble from gorski to show us all how clever his is, how much his insight on the world elevates him above all the subhuman animals.

Corrected for you.

 

[gorski]

BS, K!!! You have no idea what morality is, then...

Here...

 

[danny la rouge]

Instead of telling other people that they have no idea what this or that is, why not tell us what you think this or that is. You, know, transmit your ideas with grammatically constructed language.

 

[bimble]

this thread , every time I see it, makes me vaguely wish i was an octopus.

 

[Knotted]

BS, K!!! You have no idea what morality is, then...

Here...

I'm talking morality in the sense of that thing that typifies humans. And besides, the Nazis didn't get into power by obeying orders and they didn't rule just because people just obeyed orders. People believed in it.

 

[trabuquera]

also, being nice to others is helpful in coalition-building among mammals. you should try it some time gorski.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't want to comment before watching the lecture. Finally got round to that today, and found it reasonably interesting, so that was worthwhile.

First thing to say is that he doesn't answer the question, if, that is, one makes the assumption that the question hinges on the word "Just".

He does of course illustrate that humans are not other animals. But this is uncontroversial. Humans are of course not other animals, just as snails are not other animals.

Jones, being a snail specialist, would be able to deliver an illuminating lecture on the ways that snails differ from other animals. I might even watch it. He's an entertaining speaker.

But the word "just", in the case of snails, would not be used. I wonder if this "just" is justified merely by our ability to use language. I'm not convinced it is.

Jones discusses human jaw musculature, and how it differs from other primates. He uses it to introduce the well-known chicken-and-egg conundrum of cooking and brain size. We have a large brain powered by our ability to cook/other animals do not cook because they don't have the mental ability to do so. So, yes, as far as we know we are the only currently living species that cooks (to any great degree: some other animals do leave foodstuffs to ferment). But he quite rightly points out that if cooking is indeed the cause of brain size growth, then our pre-homo sapiens ancestors must have cooked in order for the brain size change to happen. And indeed the evidence suggests they did.

So cooking is something only currently unique to our species. Our ancestors also did it.

Gorski suggests that as well as being the only cooking species, we're the only historic species. If we define historic as being since the inception of written records, then I have no problem with that being something that marks us out from other animals. However I would have a problem with it being a necessary condition for inclusion in our species, since that would mean that we became human only when records began. We'd then have another chicken-and-egg situation of this emergence into history.

There is nothing in Jones' address to support Gorski's idea that humans are non-animal. There are plenty of illustrations of how we differ from others. But since we'd need to in order to be considered a distinct species, I don't find that a proposition of any startling or revelatory nature.

Yes, reasonably interesting would also be about my take, although it didn't cover any ground I wasn't already familiar with.

There wasn't really an overall thesis being explained, just a bunch of interesting facts, like the one about cooking. Safina characterises this kind of process as 'self-domestication': we invent things and then evolve to become dependent on our inventions. I think there is some mileage in this, but only as long as we're not trying to make ourselves look special in the process. Many species of termite have also self-domesticated by that definition in the way they have become dependent on the fungus they grow.

tbh I'm not quite sure why Jones felt the need to give that talk. I guess it is a reaction to misconceptions he encounters.

ETA: Actually, I forgot the way he started the talk. It seems to be a specific reaction to the idea of giving certain other animals rights.

 

[gorski]

Bees and a few others are the perfect example of what being "nice" is on this board: just abuse, no contribution, not even a vague effort - the only effort they do is how to duck and dive any meaningful discussion. So, fuck off, you mindless cunts, then!!!

also, being nice to others is helpful in coalition-building among mammals. you should try it some time gorski.

Being patronising is not being "nice"! I know whom to be "nice" to and I always am nice to people who are nice. Go away and ponder before you try another little BS "gesture"...

K, you missed again. Possibly trying to troll some more...

Geniuses who state that sociopaths still are Human Beings forget we do not just see them as morally flawed Untermensch, but take their rights and sometimes even life away, especially from from genocidal maniacs, child murderes etc. If they "disagree" with this assessment, I presume they would take them in and sleep with them, take care of them and... fuck them...

All in all, you are right: thanx to loads of these "helpful contributions" this thread now is badly loaded with insults (not started by me) and waffle (not exercised by me) - not a shred of thinking allowed...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know whom to be "nice" to and I always am nice to people who are nice. .

Point of order.

This isn't true. It's not even nearly true. On the binned thread you leaped in to be rude to several posters who'd been nothing but nice to you, or hadn't addressed you directly at all. You're regularly not nice to people who dare to disagree with you. (Not counting myself in this - I've lost patience and been rude to you on several occasions.)

 

[Chilli.s]

I've watched it now, humans are animals, lucky, talking, big brained animals. That also cook.