RE: Human Nature

RE: Human Nature (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Amaros -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 6:42:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Self-fulfillment via existential distraction from the inevitable. Huh? It's late. I'm going to bed. He means sex.

Raechard -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 8:55:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Wow, you missed the whole point, or simply didn't care to acknowledge it. You wrote many lines for sure but none I've not read elsewhere before.

NihilusZero -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 9:00:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Self-fulfillment via existential distraction from the inevitable. Huh? It's late. I'm going to bed. He means sex. That's certainly one of the most prolific alternatives. We all make happy worlds in our heads complete with fashionable paths and solace-inducing goals, and we set ourselves upon those roads in the blind hope that it will bring some sense of worth that we can hold dearly onto before we breathe our last breath.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 9:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver There has been enough research into human behaviour to suggest morals(for want of a better term) are hardwired. Questions modified for cultural reference given to different peoples, even rain forest tribes that have only had a modicum of contact with the outside world suggest moral (again wanting a better term) behaviour is part of human nature, as learning to talk is. The term you're looking for MC is Ethics. There were debates in several of my previous psychology classes, as well as Every philosophy class, as to whether Ethics and Morals were different, if different whether they were ingrained (instinctive/genetic/universal code) or learned social behaviors. My personal conclusions from the various debates were these. Ethics and Morals are by no means the same set of behaviors, though they can influence each other. Morals - the very term for which is derived from the concept of Social Moires - are Learned Behaviors. They change from group to group, and within time even within the same group. They have nothing to do with any sort of universiality of concept or concern, but strictly deal with what is considered behavior accepted and promoted Within The Specific Group. Ethics, conversely, are instinctive. They are either genetically ingrained as a form of "ancestral memory" or are simply a hardwired universal code. They do not change given time or distance, nor do they vary from one group to the next. While they might be mistaken as social moires, they are in fact much less mutable. Ultimately what that boils down to: Morals are a learned perversion, Ethics are a genetic flaw which forces you to back words with deeds. (To quote a long since former live in LOL) If you take a good long UNBIASED look at various groups and group behaviors this becomes evident. Various types of unnatural violent death (what we term murder) are used as an example. Every society has prohibitions against it, within the context of the Group, unless conducted in various specific Sactioned Forms. Go outside that specific group though, and the rules of That Group are no longer pertinant. Dealing with an Ethical question - the taking of the life of another for a reason other than one's own immediate survival - thus becomes grounds for Moral considerations as well - whether it is sanctioned within the context of the group and considered beneficial, or unsanctioned because it's harmful to the group overall. When taken in such context, such concepts as incest and marriageable age become matters of morality as well. Many civilizations in our combined world history considered incest not only beneficial but Necessary - royal lines were protected, dynasties maintained, by marrying half-siblings or very close cousins as a matter of course. Even now, in more remote areas of the 'uncivilized' world (think Amazon or some of the more closely knit African tribes) - if you were to seriously do a genelogical study to untwist the various familial relationships, most of those tribes are not comprised of several families - but of one extremely large extended family which could ultimately be Easily traced back to either one or perhaps 2 initial couples. Such is a necessity of survival in small, closed groups. Eventually, if there is no New blood from specifically outside the closed group, everyone is somehow Intimately related to everyone else within the group. Genetically, things such as lethal recessives take care of themselves, by the affected offspring not surviving to pass along the defective gene. In such a case, either the gene itself - or the closed group - is bred out of existance. Many instances of the earliest form of "war" - intertribal combativeness - were not simply for the resources to survive immediately (land, food, grazing/hunting rights) - but were fought over Long Term survival in the form of aquiring New Blood for the tribe in the form of stolen/conquored mates. Where Trade arose it was to ensure the same Long Term survival while also ensuring (or at least enhancing the likelihood of) short term survival. Where trade exists, you will find a blurring of the lines of intermarriageability, thus gaining that New Blood without the risk of immediate non-survival at the point of an arrow or spear.

cpK69 -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 9:50:28 AM)
I think perceived “self” preservation is the lowest common denominator of human nature. I‘m wording it that way because it appears the idea of "self", varies from one personality type to another; along with environment and perceived experiences. All of these things help form a persons core beliefs. Many are habitual in keeping their beliefs, hence, the repeat of actions. The behavior makes an easy target for manipulation. The rest is history. At least that’s my theory on the subject. (thanks for the bs) [:)] Kim

Marc2b -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 4:37:30 PM)
quote: Instinctively, I would kill you, take your woman, occupy your cave and cook your children. This doesn't happen because we are civilised. The things you are describing are merely the surface reflections of underlying instincts. Such things still go on today just in a different form. These days I don’t take your cave from you because you don’t live in a cave. Instead I sue you and take your money. My weapon is a pen instead of a club. In both cases, however, I have the same goal – to feed off of your energy.

Marc2b -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 4:47:51 PM)
quote: I certainly don't believe like Marc2b that humans are a blank slate, all the evidence suggests we aren't. Um... that is exactly what I was arguing, that we are not a blank slate (tabula rasa), but come with highly evolved and powerful instincts "hardwired" into us. I do so, however, with the caveat that we are not only that. That reasoning ability along with environment (culture family circumstances, etc.) do play a role in shaping us – just that they too are not, as kittinsol seems to suggest, all we are. As with most things, the truth lie between the two extremes.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 4:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Wow, you missed the whole point, or simply didn't care to acknowledge it. You wrote many lines for sure but none I've not read elsewhere before. Good thing I didn't write it for you. And to correct you, you never "read" those lines anywhere before because I wrote them, you may have been exposed to those concepts before, and rejected them. However, you don't offer an alternative or a rebuttal. So, why are you even responding. It seems childish.

Raechard -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 4:56:45 PM)
I think you are being rather pedantic about the difference between lines and concepts. I offer no rebuttal because there isn't a rebuttal for someone stating the obvious, other than to say “yes yes nothing new", which I did. Maybe you didn’t write them lines for me but your initial reply to my words directed at you was written for me.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 6:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard I think you are being rather pedantic about the difference between lines and concepts. I offer no rebuttal because there isn't a rebuttal for someone stating the obvious, other than to say “yes yes nothing new", which I did. Maybe you didn’t write them lines for me but your initial reply to my words directed at you was written for me. Well, since this was the post you responded to me with, and it's obvious you were pulling references from my post(shoes). I'll try to extrapolate any connection to my post for you and point out how everything you say is obvious even moreso than my supposed post, and maybe you'll see the pointlessness of pointing out a concept is not brand spanking new, especially, when no one claimed the dawning of a new idea, which is in actuality a very rare event, so rare in fact if we waited only to write new concepts, the art of writing might be lost entirely.. quote: I feel the same way about left handed people, if we eliminate all left handed people there will be no need for all those left handed tools that are anti rightist. (obvious, intentionally absurd) I don't call for a elimination of anything, simply acknowledging the "obvious" that so seems to elude those that ask the often repeated question. "why can't we all get along". If it was so obvious an answer wouldn't be called for as often as it is. I say there is no way to stop group conflict, maybe contain it, by acknowledging its inevitability. Disagree or agree, counter, whatever. Well, there is a way but it's not within our abilities to attain. quote: No one has started a war over such things but they are differences none the less. (obvious) There are differences, and there are differences we care about. No war has been started over a million other "differences" either, give it time. But we have always started wars over trumped up differences none the less. quote: Nikes are really cheap in the third world because that is where they are made(This isn't true, the price of Nikes is almost entirely profit, and advertising expenses in the Western World, it has little to do with transport costs). Give a thousand dollars to someone in the third world and you'll see it's only good for starting fires. (obvious perversion of my posts intended meaning) Money can be used to buy things that could be sent to the third world, or used to pay people like engineers to figure out ways to better third world citizens lives, pay for an education. You are to explicit in your reading. Engineers value money, processing raw materials requires money in one form or the other. Anyway, you don't state anything related to my post which is about the inevitability of conflict really. And money is whatever is used as an exchange mechanism. Money as in paper money was initially just a receipt for something of actual value. It's value ultimately is only one of trust or force. But I'm digressing anyway, it's contagious it seems. quote: We are trapped by this overarching bartering system which has been whittled down to meaningless bits of paper printed by those in power that have the cheek to suggest them printing money whenever they have a cash flow problem is better than us printing our own money because that is supposedly forgery. They can do it though because to them it’s called adding liquidity to the economy. I agree, and you state the obvious. But of course, our economy is based on the grouping of individuals as well, and seeing ones groups interests over another, that is inevitable, and that is were all the manipulation of money, comes from. However, money in concept even with our system, is not the problem, it is a symptom. Everything you state is even more obvious than my supposed obvious assertions or completely off topic. However, the problem is not acknowledging, that we are all selfish creatures. As in a person that believes themselves to be unselfish, will never be capable of formalizing guards against that behavior in themselves or a system or even recognize when they are being selfish. If my words or those concepts are so obvious, then why are they not applied in reality? Rejection, Acceptance, Denial. You don't have to answer. You seem to have an objection with "obvious" assertions, but provide only obvious viewpoints yourself that are only dimly related as stated. I'll wait for your original idea. Please don't waste people's time with the obvious.

Raechard -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 6:08:41 PM)
Blimey I'm not going to read all that I only wrote two lines.[8\|]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 6:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard Blimey I'm not going to read all that I only wrote two lines.[8\|] That's okay, I don't think you'd comprehend it anyway.

Raechard -> RE: Human Nature (9/27/2008 6:12:49 PM)
No your brain is far too complex for me it seems.[:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125