| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
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
|
|
Mark S.
August 30, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
I think it's a lot of both. I think most of us have lost it, because it is no longer a survival skill. I think that we can get it back, to a limited extent through concerted exercise, and I think that that will be a lot easier for some of us than for others. I have done some acting myself, and I think I'm pretty good at memorizing lines. I think if I had started 20 years ago as a storyteller, I'd certainly be pretty adept at it by now. I don't know how many epic length poems I could keep all in my head at the same time.
Puti wrote:
Is this because we really have lost the capacity, or because we just do not exercise it? A year or so ago I saw a long play performed by two actors speaking all the time. I am still amazed at their endless capacity to memorize all their complicated lines in a limited time.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
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
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus Animals: a theory...(1)
> The human being plans his future, establishes several schemes of life; he is a being who has to become something. On the other hand, animals are already what they will be during their entire life and they just struggle to maintain their states.
Male apes often devise long and complex campaigns to gain the position of the group leader. Jane Goodall even told about a chimpanzee stealing man-made things to make an impression to the others.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 3
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Cats have no individuality? Hogwash!
> You'll never convince me cats don't have personality!
My mother had a cat which surprised her by once licking her face when she cried, as if trying to comfort her. I have never heard about it doing so in other occasions, even though it licked people's arms during playing.
The same cat also used to wake up my mother in the morning by jumping on paino keys, and if it did not work, it went to the kitchen, opened the cupboard, and began to pull teacups out, dropping them into the metallic sink. That always worked. :-)
Puti
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 3
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Mankind versus apes
One question remains: why has mankind lost his instinct? [...] Following this idea, we can explain the wakeup of morality in mankind, a concept alien to animals which cannot compare each other since they believe that they all belong to the same entity: Nature.
Researchers are surprised again and again as they see the complex behavior of apes, reminding them of human morality and the human ways of breaking the morality. Apes are known to sacrifice their own good even in uncontrolled situations, which have been taken as a proof of deep social sense. They can also view themselves as with an outsider's eye so that they are able to fake in convincing ways. This probably also requires thinking that extends beyond the immediate future.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
> One question remains: why has mankind lost his instinct? [...] While tasks became more and more numerous and precise, men became aware of their unicity and of their identities too, first linked with their tasks., which introduced in themselves the faculty of comparison. Comparing each other, men developped their minds and turned the instinct into an obsolete thing.
Instincts have not necessarily disappeared completely. They may still exist, but may just be buried under the large and complex system of intellect. Man's ability of thought may keep him too busy to notice that he still has instincts, and he also may override his instincts by his decisions of intellect. However, at less busy moments the instincts may reappear briefly to affect his behavior.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
> In literate cultures, since we have a system of written language, that kind of memory is no longer important, and predictably, we no longer have anything like the kind of memory capacity that is taken for granted in oral traditions.
Is this because we really have lost the capacity, or because we just do not exercise it? A year or so ago I saw a long play performed by two actors speaking all the time. I am still amazed at their endless capacity to memorize all their complicated lines in a limited time.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Cats have no individuality? Hogwash!
I read your message backwards and answered part 2
first.
Then I read part 1. Again, I'm impressed by your thinking. This issue of a Human as a creature in development as opposed to an animal as a completed phenomenon is interesting.
On the other hand, I have to challenge your comments on cats. Cats are highly individual and they have complex, dynamic personalities. My girlfriend, Judy, and I have three cats, and their differences go far deeper then their skin. This is clear from something so simple as sleeping habits. Myrry is a rakish tomcat who insists on a certain amount of power and independence. When I come to bed at night, I always find him curled up blissfully in front of my pillow. I never have the heart to summarily shove him away, so I always pet him for a while and squirm in between him and Timmy (I'll get to Timmy). But Myyry's not interested in the group cuddle thing, so he always gets up at this point and curls up at the foot of the bed against my legs.
Peaches is our anorexic model kitty. She never eats enough, and we're always afraid she'll dry up and blow away if we don't watch her very carefully. Something in her instincts just isn't working right, and we have to be very careful to make sure she eats every day. That's another very interesting story, but we're talking about sleeping just now. Anyway, Peaches is a nester, and she's very particular about the kind of nest she sleeps in. She loves to sleep between my legs, but she's a very proper little girl who insists that they be covered with a blanket before she will snuggle up between them.
Timmy is the cutest of all. Timmy will never be in danger of drying up and blowing away. He's a fat Garfield kitty who's coloring, body shape, and personality often remind me of Winnie-the-Pooh (and Pooh-kitty is one of his nicknames). Timmy is the complete opposite of Myrry. Timmy insists on sleeping on his Mama's pillow, and Judy often has to fight with him to keep him from sleeping on her hair and pulling it. But once they come to some sort of agreement, he will spend the night there, blissfully purring away (and Timmy has a formidable, squeeky purr) with a paw draped fondly across his Mama's neck.
You'll never convince me cats don't have personality!
Salud,
Mark
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
August 27, 2005
# Msgs: 3
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
Arnaud, I'm sure you're exactly right.
As Darwin points out, the most surviveable characteristics are always those that are promoted, while those which are no longer necessary drop out of society. A perfect example of this is evident when you compare pre-literate cultures with literate ones.
In oral cultures, all stories must be memorized, and the ability to tell stories well is highly prized. In literate cultures, since we have a system of written language, that kind of memory is no longer important, and predictably, we no longer have anything like the kind of memory capacity that is taken for granted in oral traditions.
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
August 27, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
