We will use this blog to share our weekly twenty-minute writes.Per the syllabus, for every section meeting, you will prepare one interpretative question and then attempt to answer this question. Your question should demonstrate that you have read thoughtfully and thoroughly; it should also spark discussion about the significance of the course texts. You should expect to write for 20-minutes in an attempt to answer your question.
To earn full credit, these quick writing assignments must be posted here by 4:00 pm each Wednesday. While the blog should provide an opportunity for dialogue (you are encouraged to respond to posts by your peers), you should also try to develop and answer your own questions about the texts.
As browsers are ephemeral things, and as you need to print these short writing assignments for each class, you should do your initial typing in a word processing program, cutting and pasting to this space when you are finished. You will submit a portfolio of all your weekly postings at the end of the semester.
As always, e-mail your instructors if you have any questions or concerns.
UPDATE: you should post your questions and answers in the comment section here.
1/20/09
ReplyDeletePhilosophy 493
Jack Christiansen
How can you verify through direct observation the existence of an ‘immortal soul’?
Accidentally reading the assigned works in the order of Descartes, Hume, Darwin, Wright, and finally de Montaigne, thanks to the bluntness of Descartes I was struck by how each author at some point in their work posed the question of human-animal comparison while delicately trying to discuss the validity of religion under the safety of this umbrella. A sign of the times I am sure, for as discussed in class, all but Robert Wright were presenting their thoughts at a time when they could pay a heavy price for speaking out against the accepted – and often enforced – ‘religious truth’. Given the nature of the arguments and the political/religious climates at the time each was written, I should have probably read them in chronological order, however working forward from Descartes until finally falling back and ending on de Montaigne caused me to focus on the question of the ‘immortal soul’ more than the similarities between human and animal responses to any given situation.
I was intrigued by the summary of Descartes, particularly that he rejected all ideas that could not be verified through direct observation. Deduction is a powerful process, however Descartes must have wanted certainty. How was it then that he was willing to commit to the certainty that we as humans have an immortal soul (“…if they thought as we do, they would have an immortal soul like us” – pg 60)? What power of ‘Ghost Whisper’ observation did Descartes himself posses to verify the immortal soul through ‘direct observation’? Here Descartes religious beliefs were responsible for an inconsistency with his reasoning process. (1)
Descartes letters almost appear to be a direct response to the ideas de Montaigne presents in ‘On Knowledge and Pride’, an essay that if left to simmer long enough would perhaps have itself been a response to the biblical inconsistencies of animals and souls – i.e. the Bible says that there will be animals in heaven, yet animals were not made in God’s image as man was, and to have an immortal soul requires one to be made in God’s image, so how can animals be in heaven without a soul. While the argument of animals having souls seems to be one that would be found between religious and non-religious persons, it appears to be just as controversial within the body of religious people itself. De Montaigne and perhaps Wright may be suggesting that this is derived from the original desire to have complete dominion over the animal kingdom to use animals as necessary by some AND the guilt it may leave others with. Wright tells us that anthropologists consider the capacity for guilt as part of human nature. De Montaigne was not afraid to take this argument to the next level on page 332 to discuss if those subscribing to the ‘complete dominion over the animal kingdom is OK because they don’t have souls’ would not also believe that the human slaves people kept complete dominion over must also not have had souls. This of course would be a way to counter any feelings of guilt the slave owners may have had. Of course they still had the issue that (unlike animals) the slaves were made in the same image of God that they were. Interestingly enough, although de Montaigne seemed to be questioning the very argument of the church while pronouncing the arrogance of man, he was in fact a very “conservative and earnest Catholic”. (2)
Quantifying Darwin’s ideas that natural selection may have “hidden our true selves from our conscious selves”, Wright uses Freud to remind us that “we are oblivious to our deepest motivation”. Is Wright suggesting that Freud believes we are not as complex as we think? Should our actions actually be controlled simply by our deepest motivations and not by what we believe to be our true selves? If so then are we not also instinctual or mechanical by nature and therefore lacking souls as well by Descartes very definition?
(1) http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/historic-figures/rene-descartes/
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montaigne
Helpful link(?):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc
According to Montaigne, does our possession of knowledge deprive us of the ‘connection’ to Nature that is observed in other animals? What is this ‘connection’?
ReplyDeleteMontaigne argues two points in the portion of his essay we were provided. The first is that animals do not possess the same knowledge and reasoning that we do. That instead their actions are either done through instinct or in some cases taught. His second line of argument is that we can not categorize this as better or worse. In fact, he does not deny that many animals do things much better and more efficient then us. He argues that animals are more divinely gifted by God. That it is merely us humans that are doomed by our own knowledge.
“Besides, it is more honorable, and closer to divinity, to be guided and obliged to act lawfully by a natural and inevitable condition, than to act lawfully by accidental and fortuitous liberty: and safer to leave the reins of our conduct to nature than to ourselves.” Continuing he says, “…I should prize just as highly graces that were all mine and inborn as those I had gone begging and seeking from education” (331).
“The plague of man is the opinion of knowledge”(360).
So, are other animals ‘closer’/ more ‘in-tune’ to Nature, to God?
He certainly argues that there are attributes and senses that animals are gifted with that we are left to make up for with our creativity. That, no matter how hard we study and try to learn these natural abilities from animals, they will never come as easy to us.
“Wherein, without realizing it, we grant them a very great advantage over us, by making Nature, with maternal tenderness, accompany them and guide them as by the hand in all the actions and comforts of their life; while us she abandons to chance and fortune, and to seek by art the things necessary for our preservation, and denies us at the same time the power to attain, by any education and mental straining, the natural resourcefulness of the animals: so that their brutish stupidity surpasses in all conveniences all that our divine intelligence can do” (326-327).
Like the fox that can detect the safety of a frozen stream, or the hedgehog, the direction of the wind entering its burrow. These abilities are not natural instincts to us, an in this way other animals are more ‘in-tune’ with nature.
Though, he would defend that we are just as suited for nature as any other animal.
“Nature has universally embraced all her creatures; and there is none that she has not very amply furnished with all powers necessary for the preservation of its being”(327).
He argues this point by giving examples of peoples that live in the elements without clothes and of babies that are raised without swaddling. In addition to these natural gifts of survival given to us and all animals he also argues that we possess “…the skill, to fortify and protect the body by acquired means, … by a natural instinct and precept”(329).
I would be so bold as to say that Montaigne would argue that animals are closer to God in a certain sense. Not in the sense of their understanding, perception or relationship with God but in their being and nature, are more divine. Using Descartes analogy of animals as machines, animals are the perfect machines constructed by God, each with a perfect purpose and skill set. Simple, yet complex, pre-programmed instruments. We on the other hand are the machines we often fear in the SciFi books and movies, the robot that has developed its own thought processes and opinions. We question everything and try to answer all. Other animals don’t do this, they just are. I am not denying man’s divine relationship and position in God’s Kingdom, nor do I think Montaigne would. I’m simply stating the simplicity of God’s nature present in animals. Following this argument, God’s Nature can be found in an even more simple and pure state in Plants, and even inanimate nature (i.e., earth, wind, fire, water).
Taylor Manuel
1/21/09
Descartes writes of animals “…if they thought as we do, they would have an immortal soul like us. This is unlikely, because there is no reason to believe it of some animals without believing it of all” (60). Are all animals so alike that if something is true of one animal, it must be true of another?
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, Descartes seems to be refusing to acknowledge that animals are different from each other. He separates us, the rational humans, from the unknown, homogenous group known simply as ‘the animals.’ I can’t speak to this biologically, lacking even a very basic scientific knowledge, but even in terms of popular ideas regarding animals and what little I have observed of animal behavior, the idea that all animals are so similar as to be virtually the same does not make much sense. We relate to domesticated animals, our dogs and cats, much more than to (as in Descartes’ example of the soulless creatures) ‘oysters and sponges.’ Perhaps this is a result of exposure or upbringing. Animal behavior is varied. Oysters do not make any observable displays of emotion or play. Dogs do. This reminded me of our brief discussion in class of degree, or this idea that there are varying degrees of complexity, regardless of the ambiguity of this idea of ‘complexity.’ Descartes mentions our capacity to use language to communicate abstract thought. Arguing from a perspective more like that taken in “The Moral Animal”, this communication could be a form of complicated or masked instinct. I’m not sure the author would actually argue that but it seems as though the author is arguing that a lot of our actions which are supposedly removed from animalistic urges and desires are in fact more instinctual than we would readily admit. Somewhat along the same lines of this idea of complexity is the idea that both animals and humans have the capacity to use tools. Human use of tools is much more complex. Humans are more reliant on tools. Humans are able to drastically reduce the amount of labor required to do a job through use of tools much more than most animals are able to with their tools. Humans specialize in the way that bees do (as was brought up in another reading, I don’t remember which one) or ants do but it seems as though we are able to specialize one individual to do a task for more people (which is to say, our ratio might be substantially better in some instances, though I don’t really know). Also, humans can create tools which can act separate from human interference. These tools might have been created by humans but they are then able to perform actions based on their environments without any human interference. I know that this is a philosophy class so I will be careful with my discussion of these machines and not argue that they are intelligent or act intelligently but they are able to perform basic tasks and take in data and, from this, formulate what would statistically be the best course of action. At what point is this no longer a question of complexity and just something different entirely? This line of argument probably supports Descartes’ classification of animals and humans.
Robert Locke
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that we share so much in common with the other animals that inhabit the world with us. At first I was in agrement with the readings that were assigned. We are products of evalution as put forth by Darwin, yet we are some how set apart form the rest of the pack, if you will. I do agree that there are many intelligent animals that have not only the form of communication with one another and ofther spices, through sound and body language. Further, I am at awe at the easy at witch spinders spin a web to trap a fly or how a beaver builds a dam to change its enviroment. But I wonder if they have a concept of what a trap is or what a dam is. I have read that what makes us human is that we need to have a concept of things like dams and traps in order for us to build them. I belive that I had read this from a paper written by Durkheim. I will look into this further.
How does the exhaustive discussion of domestication in The Origin of the Species shed light on the attitude towards animals in Darwin’s time?
ReplyDeleteIn The Origin of the Species, the variation in domesticated animals is discussed at length in regard to the wide spectrum of differences among different animal and plant species and what Darwin infers from these differences. Domestication is important to Darwin’s discussion because observation of variety amongst species is more accessible to Darwin as a member of the domesticating race, as well as enabling him to look at a wider spectrum of variety that stems from a deliberate attempt to achieve a specific result. We see from this extensive opening to The Origin that the importance of animals to people is primarily based on their use to the industry of people and perhaps our reliance on animals has changed throughout changes in industry, technology, and science.
Darwin mentions a degree of lesser developed civilization a few times in regard to domesticity and the betterment of the breed. By this we see that to Darwin and his contemporaries, the development of civilization results in a higher degree of the domesticity of the animal for human use. It also seems as likely that people common to Darwin’s interest in the study of biology would deem it important to understanding the evolution of breeds and species in order to exert greater control over the domesticity of their animals important to their civilization. As the evolution of humans is not discussed further than the evolution of civilized societies is mention briefly, Darwin avoids offending his audience with any direct comparison of people to animals or grouping them together in any way. The dominant role of people sets them apart from animals in Darwin’s time, when, on a biological scale, comparisons would have been controversial in the educated community.
Follow up question:
How is this attitude different from that suggested in The Moral Animal, a contemporary piece?
One thing that has annoyed me a little is the fact that the definition of “animal” is often not defined or danced around in the readings. Montaigne doesn’t seem to question that animals are animals and humans are another thing entirely. There are similarities and differences, but what, in the definition of animal makes us a not animal? Why are we considered so different from other species that people have “people” and then “animals”?
ReplyDeleteOf course, some people do have us defined as animals; Darwin and Wright would agree, I think that humans are animals.
If I were to write a definition of what a human is I would write something like this: Humans are a living organism that all go through a cycle of birth and death, and the intervening time in between those events. Their primary means of survival is their reasoning mind.
I could write a definition of kangaroos using the same formula. The live, then die and their primary means of survival are being able to hop really well. Of course, kangaroos do more than just hop, but my point is there. I am fairly certain that I could define any living being with the same formulaic sentence. The only variability that one will find between species is the physical nature and thus means of survival. In this sense then, humans are as much an animal as pandas.
“But wait… humans have reason and art and religion… animals don’t perform symphonies! We are the only species to have these things!” I disagree. I believe that all our unique possessions is simply a result of our means of living. Physically we are inferior to almost any other animal out there. This is why we need our mind to aid in our survival. Language probably came about because of a need to communicate with everyone else in our tribe for instance. From language, we have developed philosophies, civilizations and everything else. Of course, I imagine that some people might be offended to read that human culture is only a means of survival. However, I do not believe that this statement in any way degrades the human achievements.
"There is no prejudice to which we are all more accustomed from our earliest years than the belief that dumb animals think." Do they?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Descartes on this point. I don't think anyone can argue whether or not parrots can understand speech, but we continue to anthropomorphize (?) animals that exhibit "human" behaviors. Ravens are crafty, dolphins are playful - in relation to us.
"In a sense, evolutionary psychologists are trying to discern a second level of human nature, a deeper unity within the species."
This is again, observing animal behavior from a strictly human POV. I'm not saying we can completely removed from this, obviously that's impossible. My interest is that we seem to look at animals as a different kind of human, especially with the perspective of humans as animals. Animals are humans with encoded evolutionary traits rather than psychological goals.
1. How have experiments in Pavlovian conditioning affected what we think about animals?
ReplyDeleteThe striking thing to me about the articles by Montaigne, Descartes, and Hume, is that they all seem to describe the same process and interpret it differently. Montaigne talks about a fox crossing a river, Hume talks about a horse jumping in the country, and Descartes less explicitly addresses the same issue by talking about the relationship between passions and actions. Montaigne says that the fox senses the water and then consciously decides an action, whereas Hume argues that the horse learns through more of a guess and check process. Obviously, Pavlov came along quite awhile after each of these pieces were written, but I wonder to what extent his experiments affect our views of the arguments that Descartes, Hume, and Montaigne presented long ago. Take operant conditioning, for example. The idea that behavior can be modified by positive and negative consequences hardly seems like a new idea, but when it’s demonstrated in a lab, I think that it somehow affects the ethos of the process and makes it seem like a purely physical process. Think about the things that we do experiments on in labs, and you quickly realize that they’re all physical processes. Because of this, I think it is harder for me to think that when an animal responds to a sense there might be a thought process involved. I just think that that’s what naturally happens. There’s a prescribed formula for producing an animal’s actions, and what else can you program like this? MACHINES! I’m not trying to use Pavlov as a way to prove that animals don’t think, but I do think that it’s plausible that his experiments and those that followed may have some affect on the way that the modern educated American views animals.
- Keith Underkoffler -
Are human beings selfish? And how does this selfishness affect our view towards animals?
ReplyDeleteThis question came while reading Wright’s "The Moral Animal," from his discussion of Mill on page 12. Mill questions: “Are people inherently bad?” He answers his question somewhat with the answer: it depends. I’m going to disagree, making the claim that human beings are selfish. Our decisions are motivated by personal interest in all aspects of our lives. When we do good for others - donate to charity, birth and love children - it is motivated by personal satisfaction. Nothing done is completely selfless by humans. And this is most apparent in our treatment of and attitude toward animals. In our selfish mindset animals are simply another means to our gain. We use them for our benefit, whether it be the love of a pet or the nutritional value of a cow. Selfishness is what sets us apart and places us above animals, and also what alleviates any guilt we may feel in their abuse. Wright, in "The Moral Animal," touches on this as well in his statement: “In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse” (13). Although Wright is referring to the broader moral scale of humans, his comment relates to my theory on selfishness. Perhaps we have the ability to move above selfishness - I’m sure we’ve all known, if not personally than peripherally, someone who seems to have dedicated their lives to others - the ultimate selflessness. But Wright also argues that although we have this ability, that, for the majority of us, we don’t exercise it. We instead withhold our altruistic qualities for when they will be beneficial - basically we use them for selfish purposes.
John S. Sonin
ReplyDeleteJanuary 18, 2009
Morality! The distinction between humanity and other animals may be this abstract notion, but I’m not so sure that wild animals in groups, whether it be the mother/infant dyad or the established pecking order in a troop, bevy, gaggle or covey, don’t engage in something on this order. Morality means civility and its essence in humanity is the Golden Rule, wherein individual members are able to make choices in this non-physical, abstract reality knowing they wouldn’t like some behavior they could choose to embark upon, disposed upon themselves’ by another. But who’s to say (as I’ve previously mentioned, short of having a Dr. Doolittle in our midst) what suffices for intra-group/species communication clarifying, for our deaf/dumb perception, this issue?
Organic complexity may be the determinant signifying a consciousness of this abstract reality (somehow knowing instinctually that the individual specimen is better-off when the group is preserved), and both Darwin and Wright believe this to be an out-growth of biological evolution, for I can’t see a mold spore sacrificing available land that some other weakened spore absorb more moisture and sunlight. Nor do bees choose to endanger themselves for any specific other. Yet fulfilling their genetically determined precepts, bees can martyr themselves for the queen or hive. And mold?…maybe not mold.
So the distinction between the animal and plant kingdoms may possibly be the pivot for achieving the abstract concept of self-deprivation for the sake of other individuals in the species. Yet that line too, can, at times, be pretty fuzzy for the biological evolution proposes an organic continuum that both Darwin and Wright (and I!) suppose.
The question I’ve been pursuing for quite some time now, however, is whether or not this conscious choice in humanity (made conscious through biologic necessity); this civilizing choice learned through cultural assimilation in the maturing individual (yet I suspect this Golden Rule may be some sort of providential divination), can represent a level of consciousness that engaged, may enable Western Civilization to step beyond the eternal conflict ideological paradigm, accept our own eventual mortality, and re-engage in the symbiotic planetary soup of synergistic system dynamics?
The saucepan of nature is about to bowl-over from human egomania! It’s time to play sous-chef and super-heat the Hollandaise of our human hybrids to an energy stabilizing simmer. By confronting “the contraries,” as William Blake called this eternal conflict, with direct education, our evolving ideology may recognize it cannot be resolved until, if one is Christian, Armageddon, let it go, and move-on.
I personally believe that animals have the capacity of thought. though i know that our brains are different, the complexity of their life in relation to interactions with their surroundings and other animals would warrant the advantageous evolution of this mental faculty.
ReplyDeleteDescartes states that "there is no reason to believe it of some animals without believing it of all". but when did humans no longer fall into the 'animal' category?
Descartes also states that 'non of our external actions can show anyone who examines them that our body is not just a self-moving machine", so how does Descartes judge animals with such authority as to state that they do no have conscious thought when he admits that animals would not know we posses thought? i would like to shake the hand of any brain surgeon that has seen a 'thought'.
evolutionarily, animals were not required to form our speech - but their forms of communication are no less clear than our own to the intended recipient. though our speech is far more advanced, they no less have the means of communication both with their species and several others.
Colin K.
ReplyDeleteIn the readings (especially Descartes) you see the word ‘soul’ used as part of the explanation for whether or not animals are capable of thought and for some whether or not you have a soul seems to decide whether or not you can think, but what I wonder is if it is necessary to have a soul in order to have thoughts. This seems to lack a certain amount of logic because first of all, there is the assumption that there is a soul and then that it anything to do with thought. However, whether or not there is a soul is not exactly the basis of my question. In his essay Descartes uses animals’ inability to communicate as a way of confirming that animals are incapable of thought and that it would be foolish to assume that they do communicate with each other and we simply cannot understand them. Another thing that seems to be brought up is that animals have things that they can do much better than us human. Birds can fly, tiger have claws, and moles are good at digging holes. Well, wouldn’t it make sense that the thing that humans have over animals is our ability to communicate? What I am wondering here is whether or not it makes sense for our ability to communicate our thought that set us apart and not whether or not we have a soul or can think. It seems indicative to say that we started out using our ability to communicate better to hunt a deer, and this evolved into language, which evolved into greater memory—transcribing our thoughts or discoveries—and now, thousands of years later we sitting on a computer like a bunch of jack-asses. Because after we take away the ability to communicate do humans have that they don’t?
Andy Lounsbury
ReplyDeleteI’m wondering how much Darwin really influences the way we view animals. Most of the questions people posed in class didn’t seem to be all that evolution related, instead focusing on philosophy and morals and all that jazz. Also, when waxing philosophical about nature and animals, Darwin doesn’t seem to come up that often, unless there’s a need for a history lesson. And I’ve seen plenty of arguments that, rightly or wrongly, used Darwin’s theories to reinforce the idea that humans are separate/superior to the rest of the animal kingdom (humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder, chain, tree etc.), which, unless I’m mistaken, was the prevailing view of the time.
Granted, the general worldview and attitudes toward animals have changed a lot since Darwin’s time, but I don’t think Darwin himself had that much to do with it. I’m more of the opinion that Descartes and Derrida (and other people who stare at their cats and pondered odd things) and other philosophers are the ones that brought about that change.
In Rene Descartes letters from 1646 and 1649, he argues that the animal has no soul and is not a sentient being. Based on the observation that animals possess the organs needed to communicate but have not developed speech Descartes argues that they cannot be sentient. If they could think, they would develop a way to express their feelings and thoughts to each other and maybe between species as well.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this as I see it is that Descartes is only able to observe from the perspective of a human, that compared to the emotions and way that “sentient” humans act, animals do not possess these skills. That may be true, but that does not mean that there is not something akin to thought and communication going on in a way that is so different and foreign that we cannot even perceive it. After all, in the end humans are just another species of animal. It is hard to imagine something like caterpillar that seems so mechanical having sentient thought and emotions, but also its hard to imagine being green and having 32 legs. After writing this, the question: How different are we from animals, and also how different are animals to each other?
One of the things that struck me about Darwin’s book what the lack of a real definition of what a species is (how can you decide what is a variety and what is a different species altogether).
ReplyDeleteI think this a failure of the modern taxonomic system, which is really just another failure of man’s attempts to organize the world around us in a way that will make it easier for us to understand. This is not to say that is futile to strive for understanding, at the least this has given us amazing art and scientific breakthroughs, such as modern medicine. But the point remains that as soon as we learn something about the way the world works, new questions arise. I think this is one of the beautiful things about life, the opportunities for curiosity. I think that Descartes had the right idea to start the quest for understanding with one truth.
Although humans are significantly removed from our environment have we taken such an extremely different path than our ancestors that we are now immune to natural selection? If our species is evolving is it in the traditional sense or is there some other means driving our natural selection?
ReplyDeleteThroughout geologic history species have formed over many generations because of the survival of strong genes. The difference is that in today’s society there is no clear differentiation between which traits are more advantageous than others. Is it is possible that in American culture today the most successful people who are able to provide the most for a family, those that should pass on their genes to as many children as possible, instead opt to limit the number of children they have. On the other hand it is often the case that people who have the most children also have lower incomes around the world. If this is the case then according to the rules of natural selection the people in this world who are spreading the most of their genes are not necessarily the most fit. Does this imply that as a global species we are de-evolving, or is our species evolving on a very different set of rules that we do not comprehend?
I t took a little while to find some kind of connection between the four readings because they were so philosophical. I wanted to find some kind of order. I made more since to me to read Descartes first and then compare his thoughts to Montaigne. I gathered that Descartes argued that humans were different from humans in the manner that humans have thoughts and animals do not. Descartes argues that animals have the same basic needs such as the need to eat, or play, companionship, shelter. Animals even share the same emotions as humans such as fear, sadness, excitement, fear. However, they do not like Montaigne argues have thoughts. Descartes feels that animals rely on instinct to full their needs rather than thinking about why those needs need to be filled in the first place. Montaigne gave some convincing examples of animal behavior that might have indicated that animals think but these examples were all based on external signs rather than penetrating the consciousness of the animals themselves. Furthermore, I found some of Montaigne examples farfetched. For example, in one point of the reading he argues that an elephant stillness and stance represented that elephants have religion.
ReplyDeleteBrian Nichols
I was most impressed by the light reading on the article What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee. I especially liked the argument that although we share so much genetically in common with the other great apes that we happen to be a part of, we, humans are fundamentally different and in no way closely like the other great apes, i.e. we are the one who do the categorizing. Marks also brings up this point when he mentions that it is how one looks at the DNA sequence that makes us 98% chimpanzee and not ¼ dandelion.
ReplyDeleteAll living things on Earth will has some degree of genetic similarity due to the fact that we all have descended from the some evolutionary matter. What makes Mark’s argument compelling is the way we data and statistics to represents that data. A good question to ask is what is the base line that we, humans, judge ourselves to other living organism? That is, what are the built in prejudices that we unwilling apply with our observations?
January 26, 2009
ReplyDeleteJohn S. Sonin
Eng. 413 Blog 2
Eternity
If it is a “choice” on moral grounds that which distinguishes humans from other animals, is the eternal conflict, whether to choose selfish (evil) or selfless (good) behavior, stemmed from the need for physical-unification of genders to propagate? Must one or the other gender live a lie? A lie, or skewed perception of existence in one or the other’s mind espoused or implied that the other must concur with in order that union occur? And is it a “lie” if the “other” recognizes it as completely sincere by the one perpetrating? A perspective, when honestly purveyed by an unbiased education—and if one understands less than the other it’s up to the other to educate the one, no?—only becomes a lived lie, non-reality determining literal reality, when the “other” sustains it in anticipation of unification.
But is not the need for unification such an over-whelming urge that accord between genders takes priority over truth demanding that a fallacy be conceded?
Because the female is able to “choose” and the male must “offer,” is this not where the pretended reality is generated? But the choice is made either based on truth or pretentiousness made by the other for delusion is also choosing to lie about reality.
If gender is the cradle of the eternal conflict, there can never be resolution until gender becomes unisex and asexual reproduction becomes existentially human. Believing we have a choice, free will, doesn’t resolve the conflict. This is where the essence of Western Culture resides. It’s time to let this go and move-on.
It’s evident that without existence there could be no essence, but where or how could there ever be existence without a beginning? From experience, I know the word “soul” is only a verb that signifies a continuum of quality in one’s life
John Donne, “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning”
ReplyDeleteIf they be two, they two are so
As stiffe twin compasses are two;
Thy soule, the fixt foot, makes no show
To move, but doth if th’ other doe.
And though it in the center sit,
Yet when the other far doth rome,
It leans, and hearkens after it,
And grows erect, as that comes home.
Such will thou be to me, who must
Like th’ other foot, obliquely runne,
Thy firmness drawes my circle just,
And makes me end where I begunne.
February 8, 2009
ReplyDeleteJohn S. Sonin
Eng. 418—Maier/Klein
Reading Bennet’s Reflections:… I was intrigued by his inspiring announcement of reculer pour mieux sauter. Doing a logic examination of “saltation” considering what I understand about the environmental impact of genetic attributes manifesting or expressing, like dominant right- or left-handedness, or their remaining latent, wouldn’t the chain of biologic evolution show no record if the animal or entity randomly exhibiting this expression of an attribute, never achieve reproductive capacity? Gene expressions don’t necessarily alter the underlying genes, only through somatic influence in consecutive generations would we see a phenotype difference. If that expression had proven through the generations beneficial we might find evidence of it in the historical record. If it weren’t an enhancement, any somatic change environmentally induced would rapidly regress in subsequent generations?
Somewhat like in grammatical evolution, compounding words like “heretofore” and “wherewithal” while leaving unique “before now” and “so it goes,” the minor adaptation may persist a generation or two building other enhancements, for everything in nature is always bubbling with new phenomenology, on top in the mean time which would have the chain appear to leap frog, no?
In Jakob von Uexkull’s A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men, sets forth his idea of the Umwelt theory, that is “all animals, from the simplest to the most complex, are fitted into their unique worlds with equal completeness. A simple world corresponds to a simple animal, a well-articulated world to a complex one.” On these bases I can see how appealing this theory is and the way it can be incorporated into our class.
ReplyDeleteNext was Uexkull’s description of “operational space” and how not only humans navigate the world in which we also occupy, but that of other animals as well. I will give him high marks for going into and giving great detail our “operational space.”
Uexkull’s further denotes the differences of his theory of the Umwelt, by the way we humans in our own Umwelt experience time as different set of moments then that of other animals within their own respective Umwelts. On a continuation side note I would also like to add that I would like to know more of how, we humans, experience time moments and how they affect us. For some reason and I may be going off on a slight tangent, but I am recalled in the way we humans talk about time. We can save time, send time, waste time, etc…
I wonder, if other animals have a concept of time and if so, how can one discover and what those values may be and how best to try and relate the two diffeances.