Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
We get your point, I think. We are having a trouble getting our point across, though. We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

Humm, I suspect that I have 'seen that' just that I have this notion that it's impact upon us, and therefore all of what we can, and do, do, is enourmous, and that that differentiates us from the rest of the animals in a manner that appears (simply) subtle but works out over time to be HUGE, sort of like that "little degree of difference" expanding in orders of magnitude what we can accomplish.
Hence (perhaps) just a little (bit) more then is being admitted to...?

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth?

Not enough to say that humans aren't animals, which we clearly are.

 

[Royce]

Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not separate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not separate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal?

And, also, we choose what criteria to judge the differences...the difference in strength between a gorilla and human is tremendous, but we are both primates.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is agreed that we are animals, but we are the most different animal on the planet, and the most adapted/adaptable.

All of what any of you knows is waaaaaay past anything any other animal will ever learn, in it's entire life!

The rest of the animals learn only from the situational circumstances, they learn from the immediacy (sp?) of where they are!

 

[Royce]

Okay we're different, even waaaaaaay different than any other single species; but; you are saying this because of one or two criteria. It it those two things, language and ability to learn outside of the immediate circumstances? I don't agree with the latter by the way. Is it correct to say that both are so interrelated that they are actually one characteristic, language; that language is what makes us human and different from the rest of the animals?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

Do you have vidence? We act just like monkeys, boss.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Langauge alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

Our linguistic abilities are a function of our superior intelligence combined with our capable vocal chords. Other animals have intelligence, too. Therefore, it is a difference of degree. All language really is is using symbols. Even a dog can recognize a correlation between a symbol and what it's related to or supposed to represent. We give them oral commands, don't we? How is that not a simple version of linguistic abilities?

Even more obvious, as I have already pointed out, gorillas have been taught to use sign language to form sentences. If this is not language, then I'm bewildered as to what language is.

It is a difference of degree.
----------------------------

Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.

 

[THANOS]

Let me use the dictionary to straighting things out.

Animal: 1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

Mammal: Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Homo sapiens: The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

Extant: Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct.

Primate: A mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain.
A bishop of highest rank in a province or country.

Hominidae: modern man and extinct immediate ancestors of man.

Anthropoids: Resembling a human, especially in shape or outward appearance.

Prosimians: Of or belonging to the Prosimii, a suborder of primates that includes the lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers.

Prosimii: not used in all classifications; in some classifications considered coextensive with the Lemuroidea; in others includes both Lemuroidea and Tarsioidea.

Lemurs: Any of several small arboreal, mostly nocturnal primates chiefly of the family Lemuridae of Madagascar and adjacent islands, having large eyes, a long slim muzzle, and a long tail.

Lorises: Any of several small, slow-moving, nocturnal prosimian primates of the genera Loris and Nycticebus of tropical Asia, having dense woolly fur, large eyes, and a vestigial tail.

Tarsiers: Any of several small nocturnal arboreal primates of the genus Tarsius, of the East Indies and the Philippines, having large round eyes, a long tail, and long fingers and toes tipped with soft disklike pads.

I'm sure humans end up being linked with animals here don't they?

 

[THANOS]

I looked up ape and found the meaning also contained Mimic in there. mimic also means: To copy or imitate closely, especially in speech, expression, and gesture; ape.
Now that i think of it. We are close to the meaning of ape. Considering that our technology is based on imitating our surroundings. We can fly because we thought of wings and imitated a bird. We learned speech only by imitating each other. Ben Franklin learned that lighting was electicity and invented the lighting rod. Thomas Alva Edison thought of electricity as a novelty. And lit up the streets by the time he died. I guess we humans are the master of imitating.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets try it this way, a group of monkeys a videoed by a film crew. They experience what humans are, how a filem crew goes around filming them over time, all of us humans, who get to see that video, know of those monkeys, and how they behave, and know that they do not know of us and the rest of the "outside world" (outside of there world)

The monkeys are then left alone in the forest, they go about their activities, and in a mating produce, a baby. When this baby is five years old, the same age of it's parents when they had experianced "The film crew", that baby will still have no idea what a "film crew" is, and it never will if it is never in the presence of one, as there is no input/output for abstractions such as language.

That given, I can hold against anyone of you everything you personally know, your entire learning record is on my side for proving that you are special, in comparision to all of the rest of the animals.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets try it this way, a group of monkeys a videoed by a film crew. They experience what humans are, how a filem crew goes around filming them over time, all of us humans, who get to see that video, know of those monkeys, and how they behave, and know that they do not know of us and the rest of the "outside world" (outside of there world)

The monkeys are then left alone in the forest, they go about their activities, and in a mating produce, a baby. When this baby is five years old, the same age of it's parents when they had experianced "The film crew", that baby will still have no idea what a "film crew" is, and it never will if it is never in the presence of one, as there is no input/output for abstractions such as language.

That given, I can hold against anyone of you everything you personally know, your entire learning record is on my side for proving that you are special, in comparision to all of the rest of the animals.

I don't understand what you are trying to point out here. How would you expect a the young monkey to know what a film crew is if it never experienced one? The same would be true of a human...

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is doubting that humans are more intelligent, on average, than other animals. But that does not make some magical barrier between humans and other animals.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I don't understand what you are trying to point out here. How would you expect a the young monkey to know what a film crew is if it never experienced one? The same would be true of a human... Funny, I could just show the human child, a film of it, and they would be able to gain an understanding of it, unlike the "child chimp"[/color]

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is doubting that humans are more intelligent, on average, than other animals. But that does not make some magical barrier between humans and other animals. Hummm, your opinion, you seem to miss the "orders of magnitude" of addition to human history (what the monkeys cannot share amongst themselves is their history) that is what arises as "you", and all of what you know from all of what has been collectively learned in humanities history, and how that shapes you, enourmously different from any other animal.[/color]

 

[Zero]

Hmmm...lawn mowers and automobiles?? Certainly different, but not a giant gap between them. It is the same principle involved in both. A giant difference would be if cars hovered on anti-gravity fields.

 

[Royce]

Years ago I watched a show, Nature, I think, about monkeys or maybe apes in northern Japan. They were being fed and studied. One mother monkey learned I suppose by accident to separate grains of rice from the sand that it was laying in by throwing it in the water. /The rice floated and the sand of course sank. She then scooped up the cleaned rice and ate it. She taught her daughter how to do this. A few years later when the Japanese again visited the island to study the monkeys they found that most of that group had learned to do the same thing. Isn't this learning and passing along from generation to generation and monkey to monkey a new learned skill? How does this differ from mankind before writing was developed?
We are different from animals by degree only and then only in one or two criteria are we superior. Agreed that these differences have pushed us over the top and we are vastly more technologially developed than any other animals. Never the less is is by degree only and we are animals ourselves. We are not as large as some. we are not as strong as some. we can not see as well as some. we cannot smell as well as some. we cannot hear as well as some. we can not make the sounds that some can. We do not have as big a brain as some.
So how is it that we are superior and separate and different and have the right to use and rule the world as we see fit at the moments?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
Years ago I watched a show, Nature, I think, about monkeys or maybe apes in northern Japan. They were being fed and studied. One mother monkey learned I suppose by accident to separate grains of rice from the sand that it was laying in by throwing it in the water. /The rice floated and the sand of course sank. She then scooped up the cleaned rice and ate it. She taught her daughter how to do this. A few years later when the Japanese again visited the island to study the monkeys they found that most of that group had learned to do the same thing. Isn't this learning and passing along from generation to generation and monkey to monkey a new learned skill? How does this differ from mankind before writing was developed? As I tried to explain it is a demonstrable teaching, unlike me telling you about M 31 and you knowing that that is real, is there. (can be seen and confirmed in a manner of speaking)[/color]
We are different from animals by degree only and then only in one or two criteria are we superior. Agreed that these differences have pushed us over the top and we are vastly more technologially developed than any other animals. Never the less is is by degree only and we are animals ourselves. We are not as large as some. we are not as strong as some. we can not see as well as some. we cannot smell as well as some. we cannot hear as well as some. we can not make the sounds that some can. We do not have as big a brain as some.
So how is it that we are superior and separate and different and have the right to use and rule the world as we see fit at the moments? The very fact that you can "write" that out, I can "read" it, "respond", that is what is so enourmously different about us humans, our collective ability to deal with these abstractions we call language/typiconography/sybolisms. The rest of the animals have no access to the recioprocity of inner imagination that we have, the ability to correlate the outer with the inner, the ability to lie about either of those, and on and on and on, keep writing......you prove my point[/color]

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...lawn mowers and automobiles?? Certainly different, but not a giant gap between them. It is the same principle involved in both. A giant difference would be if cars hovered on anti-gravity fields.

And the difference between an oxen driven cart, and a car, and a space shuttle, and a motorcycle, and a horse, and "an artificial horse" (AKA Bicycle) and what is it that the rest of the animals use, "X" driven what are youmacallits?

 

[Royce]

We all agree that humans are different from "lower" animals. We are saying that we are different in degree by limited criteria. Inects, birds, mammals all build or make homes and modify their environment to better suit their need.
Man is not unigue in this or any other life activity with the exception of writing. I know of no other animal that "writes" although many communicate and leave signs and records of their passing by or their territorial boundaries. This can be loosely concidered a form of nonverbal communication as is writing because it is done with the conscious effort of communicating with another of it's species without the other being present at that time. So even writing can be concidered just a matter of degree. It is just an adaptation of a trait that has existed in the animal kingdom for millions of years. This is an oversimplification and an extreme viewpoint but could still be valid.
So Mr. Parsons, what is your point?

 

[jammieg]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by jammieg
What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

Well, in billions and billions of years, they might...just not in their present state.

I think what it comes down to is evolutionary pressure...as populations grow, competition becomes greater, and each species has to have its own 'trick' to survive. Brain-power is the path humans took, but it is no more or less impressive than some of the other incredible adaptations that animals and plants have arrived at.

 

[THANOS]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

heh. Well a probably 500 years ago we humans didn't seem like we will ever go in space and land on a moon. Hell even then is when our world was flat. All it takes is one simple idea that will make life easier for your species. Like tools.

 

[Royce]

I think Zero is right as far as he goes (I can't tell you how hard this is for both of us to actually agree so much on any subject). Our brains developed as a survival tactic under environmental pressure. We had little else to rely on. We as a species are physically rather ill equiped for survival. The more brains we had, the smarter and more adaptable and clever that we were, the better we were at surviving.
I think we were pushed beyond a threshold. Our intelligence, adaptability, tool making and language all fed and supported one another causing our brains to develope these talents even further unit we went over the top and became Homo sapiens.
From there through trade and communication, by passing along and passing down information our knowledge grew and continued to grow at a nonlinear if not expotentional rate.
The smarter we became the more able were we at surviving. The more knowledge we gathered the more we were able to gather more. It soon went way beyound survival.
One idea or piece of knowledge builds on another and poses even more problems to be solved. There was a PBS series a number of years ago with David Attenburough (sp?) named "Connections." In it he showed how one technilogical and/or scientific breakthrough or development lead to others that lead to even more advancement.
In many ways its surprising that we are not further along than we are. We are continously stepping through new thresholds and entering new eras. We cannot keep up with the advances and developements we are making now. We do not even know yet how to best apply the scientific data and technology that we have available now. Our only limits are energy, money and time. Which direction do we take? What new world will that lead to? I used to wonder what my grandmother thought of the world and how it had changed from 1900 to the 1980's. Now I think back from when I was born in 1942 to what has happened in my lifetime. Try to imagine what the world will be like for you people in your twenties forty years from now at the rate of growth and advancement increasing every generation.
Yet we are still animals and all of the same life form that is interdependent and mutually supporting.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Forgive me, Me, quoting myself
. Hummm, your opinion, you seem to miss the "orders of magnitude" of addition to human history (what the monkeys cannot share amongst themselves is their history) that is what arises as "you", and all of what you know from all of what has been collectively learned in humanities history, and how that shapes you, enourmously different from any other animal.

You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

From your view point, yes, I agree that I am proving your point.
Our point, however, is that such accumulations of knowledge is possible only because of a trait that differs only in degree from similar traits of lower animals; and, hense, the term "lower animals" is not a proper term. We think that your point is that this trait is different in type and separate from any and all traits held by lower animals; and, thus, the term "lower animals" is valid.
This, I think, is the point of disagreement and discussion. Other than this fine and possibly irrelavent point, I think, we all agree.
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being separate from and different from the rest of life on Earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea that man was created separate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.

 

[Zero]

The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being separate from and different from the rest of life on Earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea[/color] that man was created separate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.

Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

I think that I meant to say that it leads to the Judeo-christian idea among others,i.e. that man was created to have dominion over all the world. It is apperantly a very human activity/practric, anthrocentricity. (Is that the word I want?)

"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Yes, vegetables too. We eat and gain nurishment from veggies, share DNA, etc. Bacteria have been gene spliced to produce human insulin that diabetics such as myself inject to stay alive. Isn't this proof that we are of the same life form if not related.

Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

I am neither ignoring nor ignorant of the vast differences between mankind and the "lower animals and life forms." I am pointing out that there are equally vast differences between other families, kindoms, whatever and that the differences are of DEGREE not KIND.

As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

Not hardly. In this and other threads in other posts I have stated that, IMO, language has been as much a cause, driver, of our advancement,evolution, as it has been a result of our evolution and advancement as a species. Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
And an ego makes us superior?!?

That's exactly the opposite of my point. I said that anyone who says that one animal (including humans, obviously) is "better than" (or "superior to") another has missed the point of Darwinian evolution entirely.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

This is a very important point, in light of a new thread, that I have started myself. Zero is absolutely right that to judge people against the human standard is wrong, since it ignores where they have us beat. I add to that (as per the aforementioned thread) that most all (if not all) other animals are more successful than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.

Excellent point, and very eloquently written, Dan.

It really doesn't require that I add anything at all, but there is a point that I wanted to mention that is along the lines of what you are saying. Anyone who's seen The Matrix: Reloaded should see the folly in saying "I have power over this or that, simply because I can destroy it whenever I wish". Dan used the term "power" in this light, and demonstrated how it is fallacious to assume that "power" makes us "better"; but I also wish to point out that the "power" itself is an illusion. Remember, if we destroy everything, we destroy ourselves (much like in the The Matrix: Reloaded with regard to the machines), which is in no way a "victory" for us, and thus we are powerless, if we define "power" as the ability to destroy.

This was also touched on by Ghandi, when he talked about the philosophy of Satyagraha, which strengthened the people, since it exposed the utter lack of "power" that the English had, inspite of their confidence in their "power" (ability to destroy). Ghandi showed that, if the English were to destroy them completely, they would have no people to call their new "property"...there would be no "losers" and thus no "winners".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out anyone of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out anyone of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.

Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Royce Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.

I can't agree with you more. The ability to name objects and concepts, and to refer to them and discuss them when they are not in our presence, to engage in sophisticated mental modeling by means of language, truly distinguishes us from animals.

You might enjoy reading Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks, a book about deafness parts of which discuss the truly powerless situation of deaf people in the past before the development of widely used sign languages.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.
Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.

And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one?

"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.

Animals still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

 

[jammieg]

I agree and think it could be considered both religious or human, or the human tendency to want a definitive religious certainty.

Well I was going to say imagination was probably the most important thing we had going for us, I mean what else could drive someone to study bees for 40 years and win a noble prize, whereas most of us would say that was quite mad I'm sure he was delighted the whole time because he choose to make it an adventure by turning on his imagination to long analytical study of something that wasn't really that big of a deal but then who knows until one does it, to me he won the noble prize by demonstrating that we humans are crazy and could turn anything we want it to a passion and adventure with the deliberate use of imagination, almost as if to imagine a thing is to fire up and stimulate the neurons themselves to grow, in effect turn whatever we choose into something enjoyable, no other animal seems to freak out about and be able to make such a big deal out of such trivial things as we do, but in the process who knows what one gems one may find if a person could spend 40 years on bees, then who knows what depths of knowledge might lie in such seemingly mundane things as Bruce Lee's fixation with physical speed and adaptability and formlessness...I wonder what he was talking about...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one?

Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.

"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.

Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).

Animals...

You mean "other animals", don't you?

still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?) Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either![/color]
Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, Humm, kinda makes us special, don't you think??[/color] since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).
You mean "other animals", don't you?
No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature. By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't![/color]

 

[mikelus]

whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us.

All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?)

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).

Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!

But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!

If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

And that so-called "power" is our own greatest threat...we have no advantage that does not come with a greater or equal disadvantage.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.


Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).
But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.

Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. Yes you can, but it would be a lie![/color] So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

It is in human history that we have very successfully co-existed with the environment.

So you seem to think that birds are better a flying then Humans, you mean 'like' as a natural function of corporeal being, cause Humans IS WAAAAAAAY better at flying then ANY BIRD!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.