| # |
Message |
Posted By |
| 59039 |
Mankind versus Animals!
Maybe this message fits better in the group devoted to literature, but I think it should raise a debate on the whole civilization.
I read Lord of the flies by William Golding. This book has shocked me because of the violence that reigns in its pages. To sum up the story, you should know that a plane crashed on a remote island in the Pacific and let male children under 12 living on their owns during a large time. This book describes how human beings turn into animals, forgetting all the civilization values, forgetting the price of life. On the other hand, we could point out that they are very young and not completely aware of values and civilization, since their education has not been finished.
I could agree that a man alone on his island could become a kind of animal due to the lack of other human beings able to remind him of the boundary between the animal reign and humanity. But in Golding's work, there are at least 10 or 15 children.
There is my question: what does separate human beings from animals? How would you react on a remote island deprived of any modern comfort?
I know it is a large question that can be answered from many points of view... philosophy, genetics, ethics, religion, politics... And I would be happy if many people could take time to write an answer.
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
|
| 59264 |
Re:Mankind versus Animals!
> I could agree that a man alone on his island could become a kind of animal due to the lack of other human beings able to remind him of the boundary between the animal reign and humanity.
>
> [...]
>
> what does separate human beings from animals?
In this context probably the level and sophistication of self-control.
In sparsely inhabited countries there actually are people who live in wilderness, with very few contacts to people for years or even decades. According to what I have heard these people do not become animals, even though they may forget some parts of their cultural sophistication. (Probably not a great loss from a hermit's viewpoint.) However, this does not imply that they would lose their human attitude towards the people in general, unless their isolation is not caused by mental sickness from the very beginning.
I do not believe that the mere loneliness of the children in "Lord of The Flies" would be a sufficient cause for inhumane behavior. It may work as a catalyst, if the children bring the ingredients of inhumanity inside themselves to the island,
and due to their immaturity have no means to control its growth.
> How would you react on a remote island deprived of any modern comfort?
I have not tested myself that extremely. To me the lack of clean water, safe food, and a toilet (and Internet!) would be more of an issue than a fear of losing my humanity.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59039
|
|
|
| 59442 |
A possible interpreting.
You seem to base your argument on a specific example: those people living out of any civilization. However, those communities, wether they are mere families, made of a couple and his son, or a some ten individuals tribe, are civilizations. Because, even in the case of a three-peopled family, there is an authority, generally embodies by the father. Besides, a man and a woman, a son and his parents, are antagonist trends, but in the end there is a transcendental interest: the survival of the household and the continuation of the species and of parents' legacy thanks to the son. The same occures at a wider scale with the tribe.
In Golding's book, the boys are not linked by nothing, they even did not know each other before the plane crash. They are strangers put together by chance. This crucial point explains that they do not feel a real common interest, or duty among them, and that the first emerging tensions end in a bloodshed.
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59264
|
|
|
| 59628 |
Re:A possible interpreting.
> You seem to base your argument on a specific example: those people living out of any civilization. However, those communities, wether they are mere families, made of a couple and his son, or a some ten individuals tribe, are civilizations.
What I was thinking was actually a middle-aged man living completely alone in his hut among wilderness, visiting inhabited areas once in a year or so, only for reasons like buying rifle cartridges. Such people have no other physically present authority than the nature, and therefore they are free to follow any moral code they may wish. However, extended periods in loneliness do not seem to impair their humanity.
> In Golding's book, the boys are not linked by nothing, [...] This crucial point explains that they do not feel a real common interest, or duty among them, [...]
In such case I would even think about the opposite: the trouble began because they stayed in a tight group, without the maturity required for social life. They were exposed to each others' ambitions and the social games of acception and rejection, resulting in typical formation of gangs, mobs, and mini-tribes. Had they had better tools for survival, some of them might have done better each one in his own solitude.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59442
|
|
|
| 59686 |
Re:Mankind versus Animals!
From personal expeirence, Humans are animals. They bite, scratch, stalk, kick, hit, maul, attack, betray, and are just all around dangerous. (for the most part) They compeat, mock, mimic, and kill eachother. They steal and cheat. Although there are many great people out there :) there are also horrible ones. Personaly, by other humans I have bin bite, scratched, stalked, kicked, hit, betrayed, mocked, and mimiced. All by people younger and the same age as me. Though when it comes to people older than me, well, thats another story.
This is a very interesting topic. I started to read Lord of the Flies also, but never finnished it. I got to the part where they had the fire on top of the mountain thing, if I recall?
|
Language pair: English; German
This is a reply to message # 59039
|
|
|
| 59755 |
Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
I must answer something to your message blaming human beings for their robberies and betrayals, which drives you to compare them with animals. Nevertheless, if you think again about it, you should change your mind. Thus, animals do not betray, nor steal. They cannot betray because this word entails a willing to damage the other. On the other hand, animals do not have this kind of willing, all their acts are conducted by one imperative: their survivals. When an animal take the food of another, there is no prejudice in the mind of the stolen animal. It is nature, and none of its rules bans this acting. Survival allows all kinds of acting. Betrayal and robberies are pure human devices due to our ability to invent rules to leave nature and constitute human societies.
|
Language pair: English; German
This is a reply to message # 59686
|
|
|
| 59776 |
Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
But actually, that brings up a very big difference Dwyn. When animals bite and scratch etc, etc. its a matter of survival. Only with people is it personal.
|
Language pair: English; German
This is a reply to message # 59686
|
|
|
| 59859 |
Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
Does betrayal necessarily entail intent to harm?
I agree that it often does. My mind is exploding with exceptions, and I'm trying to think of an example that's famous enough to be meaningful.
Well, let's just do a hypothetical. Perhaps a man is very happily married, and one day meets an old high-school girlfriend. Delighted to see her after many years, and eager to learn what she has been doing in the intervening time, they go out for a drink together. They have a wonderful visit, and lots of wine, and end up sleeping together before their visit is over.
I would say in this case that the man has certainly betrayed his wife. And you can call him stupid or selfish, or irresponsible, or any of a thousand different things, but I don't see how you can say that he had any intent to harm his wife. He merely neglected his responsibility to her.
What do you think?
Reply to message # 59755
Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals! Arnaud MALARDE
I must answer something to your message blaming human beings for their robberies and betrayals, which drives you to compare them with animals. Nevertheless, if you think again about it, you should change your mind. Thus, animals do not betray, nor steal. They cannot betray because this word entails a willing to damage the other. On the other hand, animals do not have this kind of willing, all their acts are conducted by one imperative: their survivals. When an animal take the food of another, there is no prejudice in the mind of the stolen animal. It is nature, and none of its rules bans this acting. Survival allows all kinds of acting. Betrayal and robberies are pure human devices due to our ability to invent rules to leave nature and constitute human societies.
This is a reply to message # 59686
Language pair: English; German
Category: Opinions
|
Language pair: English; German
This is a reply to message # 59755
|
|
|
| 59989 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
It is true that your example makes me think a lot. On the other hand, the man your depicted knew that he would damage his wife, and nevertheless he decided to go too far beyond the limits. We can claim that he was drunk, that he loved his wife and that it was an accident, but nonetheless, there was a moment when his mind told him: "you will regret it", however he decided to put it aside and have fun. This short moment is the damage willing, I think, even though it is a really short moment. The best proof is that he feels regrets and guilty after his act. One is only convinced of guilty when he has bad intents.
Does this answer your question? Surely you could find many other examples to support your theory, and nevertheless, I think that most of the time a betrayal is a bad intent. I cannot think of the contrary. I would be happy to know the other cases that dwell in your mind.
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59859
|
|
|
| 60038 |
"The rule does not apply on me"
> there was a moment when his mind told him: "you will regret it", however he decided to put it aside and have fun. This short moment is the damage willing, I think,
There is a common pattern in many of the mistakes we do, namely the thought that we can find an exception to the rule. "I can still take a 5-minute nap before I have to go. I can do this little bit of speeding even if it is considered illegal. I can run this test on the nuclear power plant with safety devices off. I can establish the capital city here even though there are earthquakes." However, there are times that the reality refuses to cooperate.
I wonder how many accidents there would be left, if we were free of all human shortsightedness.
Even though we want no harm to ourselves or to the people around us, we are guilty at the moments we knowingly mess up our priorities.
Courage may sometimes call for action that looks foolhardy. Then, I guess, it is the motive of the action that tells the heroes apart from the fools.
Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59989
|
|
|
| 60057 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
See, actually, here is where I think we go from the specific to the general. The key difference, for me, in the case of the unfaithful husband, and in fact in all of the cases that might illustrate my point, is that it is not a specific desire to harm that is operative, but rather a natural desire to care and support that has been overwhelmed by other feelings that are in conflict. It is not a positive intent to hurt so much as an insufficient commitment to not hurt. The man loves his wife and would never deliberately hurt her. But his momentary excitement is overwhelming. He may not even think about his wife in the heat of the moment, or if he does, he may resolve the conflicts in his mind by some ridiculous argument that may not even hold water if he looked at it thoughtfully. The problem is that in this situation, he is not willing to take the effort to think carefully because "Mr. Happy" has taken over the thinking department" The brain has been checked, and the husband has become unwilling to thoughtfully consider the most likely outcomes of his choice. Because if he did consider them, he might be forced to confront the fact that his actions are tantamount to a willing harm to his wife. This would actually force him to back out, which at a certain point he may become constitutionally incapable of doing. it's like the Alcoholic who destroys his family and his life with his drinking behavior. It is not because he doesn't care about his life and about his family. It is because his sickness forces him to live in a state of denial that allows him continually to choose alcohol over the most patently obvious sensible choices. Ideal example: Bill Clinton.
# 59989
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals! Arnaud MALARDE
It is true that your example makes me think a lot. On the other hand, the man your depicted knew that he would damage his wife, and nevertheless he decided to go too far beyond the limits. We can claim that he was drunk, that he loved his wife and that it was an accident, but nonetheless, there was a moment when his mind told him: "you will regret it", however he decided to put it aside and have fun. This short moment is the damage willing, I think, even though it is a really short moment. The best proof is that he feels regrets and guilty after his act. One is only convinced of guilty when he has bad intents.
Does this answer your question? Surely you could find many other examples to support your theory, and nevertheless, I think that most of the time a betrayal is a bad intent. I cannot think of the contrary. I would be happy to know the other cases that dwell in your mind.
This is a reply to message # 59859
Language pair: French; English
Category: Opinions
Post date: September 2, 2005
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 59989
|
|
|
| 60084 |
Different Kinds of mistakes
I can't think of any. We talk about ignorant mistakes and about careless mistakes. Some of the slang terms may have connotations one way or the other, like "opening a can of worns" is generally thought of, I think, as a kind of ignorant mistake, though it doesn't have to be out of ignorance, it usually seems to be. But most of our expressions for mistakes apply equally regardless of whether the goof occurs out of ignorance or carelessness.
Are there different words for the two in Finnish? In other languages?
Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
Puti
This is a reply to message # 59989
Language pair: French; English
Category: Opinions
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 60038
|
|
|
| 60101 |
Re:Different Kinds of mistakes
>> Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
>
> Are there different words for the two in Finnish?
I know about none that would make a clear distinction. That is why I thought to ask others.
Puti
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 60084
|
|
|
| 60294 |
Re:Different Kinds of mistakes
I only can tell you about the German language. In German we use a word for careless mistakes called "Flüchtigkeitsfehler".
For ignorant mistakes we don't have a special term; it's usual just to call it "Fehler".
Gudi
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 60084
|
|
|
| 60455 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
Can I give another example? You might understand this better.
Okay so your in school and you best friend tells you a secret and you swear not to tell. Then your talking to some other friends and somehow it ties in with the secret, and one friend has the same problem. Without thinking you say, " hey, so and so, blah, blah, blah." Well, you had no intention to tell, yet, it sliped and you just betrayed you best friend. Unintentionaly.
|
Language pair: English; German
This is a reply to message # 59989
|
|
|
