the best thing about being human?

[cacian]

Is or are....

This is part of my dissertation so any ideas would be grateful:p

[Buh4Bee]

The struggle to be a good person.

[Alexander III]

The ability to go beyond reason.
The beasts of nature are limited by reason, they eat because they are hungry, they sleep because they are tired, they move because their reason tell them to do so. Mankind however can go beyond that, we can do that which is irrational and illogical. That is our great strength.

Just my thoughts

[cacian]

The struggle to be a good person.

Hi Buh4Bee do you think we humans are born good?
Inother words is goodness inherent?

[paradoxical]

Our ability to use language and make music—which goes along with what Alexander III said. Also, our understanding of mathematics and science, and ability to ponder deep philosophical and spiritual questions. Which is both a blessing and a curse. An animal does not live in fear of the afterlife, nor does it feel shame or regret over breaking certain rules handed down by religion or society.

An animal has an instinct to live, and does not want to suffer pain. However, most animals die with a neutral look in their eyes. It is accepted and natural, as though they are simply passing from one state to the next. Certain animals may feel regret over leaving their offspring behind, but that's about it. Sadly, humans often die with fear in their eyes and feelings of intense sadness and regret.

We fear what happens to us after we die, precisely because of our greater intellect and ability to reason. Our developed emotions also cause us to feel an incredible loss when we part with friends and family. I believe that in many ways it is better to be born an animal rather than a human. Of course, animals lead hard lives in the wild, often filled with pain and hunger, but it is the advanced consciousness of mankind that drives people crazy.

[Buh4Bee]

Well Cacian, anyone who has children will laugh at the idea of children being innately born good, at least where I come from. They are taught what to be as they grow; this is according to the developmental psychologist. I think your question hangs more in the realm of philosophy. I think this is a question to debate when you are reading classical philosophical texts, not talking about practical everyday life.

The struggle exists for some because we strive for something better than just being good. It feels good to be the best and most honest person you can be. But now, I am getting corny and slightly religious. So, I have nothing more to say on the matter. Hope this answers your question.

[Pensive]

Compassion.

[osho]

Is or are....

This is part of my dissertation so any ideas would be grateful:p

My nerves are on end when I try to answer your question. I do not pretend to be angelic and which I am not. I am a monster to admit to all of you beatific saints. I came here through the dirtiest channel we feel disinclined to name it among you all from a woman's womb and there were zillions of my brothers and sisters and I survived all of them and got blown into a size and intelligential nature.

The best thing about being human is to feel the life, the earth I tread and witness events from a distance which the rest of my fellow animal-beings cannot do. They are in it and I am in it and at the same time out of it.

Now I can through the internet speak my mind and have the access to everything I want say and yet I do not do so for fear of being censored or banned here by the administrator. This power though reined in for a variety of reasons is the best thing about being what I am. I can talk sense or nonsense. I can be decent or obscene, be well-behaved or boorish. This unlimited capacity and the feeling that I am capable of doing anything at some risk at times make me feel that being man has a lot more advantage over the rest of species.
Here I am with you face to face virtually and I have the right to PM all of you and fellow beings invented this nexus called the Internet. I have the right to use and misuse it, to please and displease you.

Is it not really great about being man? I apologize - being woman?

[PoeticPassions]

as opposed to being what?

I can't say what the best thing about being human is, as I have no recollection of ever being anything else. But I can say what the best parts of different stages of being a human are... in childhood it is the lack of obligations and responsibility (a different kind of freedom...); in adolescence it is the idealism and purity of love (the first time one falls in love is the most untainted, beautiful experience); in young adulthood it is the discovery of oneself and the freedom to define oneself; in later adulthood, which I may just be entering, it is a calmer sense of confidence... as for the rest, we'll see when I get there.

But the ability to create beauty and the ability to love has to be at the top of the human experience.

[cacian]

as opposed to being what?
There is no such a thing ''as as oppose to what'', just being a person is that because we can only compare ourselves to other beings.

I can't say what the best thing about being human is, as I have no recollection of ever being anything else. But I can say what the best parts of different stages of being a human are... in childhood it is the lack of obligations and responsibility (a different kind of freedom...); in adolescence it is the idealism and purity of love (the first time one falls in love is the most untainted, beautiful experience); in young adulthood it is the discovery of oneself and the freedom to define oneself; in later adulthood, which I may just be entering, it is a calmer sense of confidence... as for the rest, we'll see when I get there.

But the ability to create beauty and the ability to love has to be at the top of the human experience.

I so like your very list two lines because they speak volume about why we humans are on this earth.
Achieving harmony and well being is one most important part of being a human.

[PoeticPassions]

There is no appose to being anything , just being a person for we can only compare ourselves to other beings.



Yes, I suppose that is true. I think I forgot to mention that in all of these stages of life, the one thing that connects them all, and perhaps the best part of them all is IMAGINATION. Though, as a child the imagination is so pure and limitless, but as an adult it can be limitless as well, just in a different way.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Orgasms.

[osho]

Orgasms.

One of the definable things that spells out the best thing about being human.

Do animals have it?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm pretty sure they do, at least some of them. Need to get one of the biology people in here. Still, that doesn't mean it isn't a great thing about being human.

[osho]

Biology is overshadowed by philosophical ruminations, though the root of all that makes human human is biology and the rest is chemistry only

[Paulclem]

The developments of pain releif

[JuniperWoolf]

The ability to go beyond reason.
The beasts of nature are limited by reason, they eat because they are hungry, they sleep because they are tired, they move because their reason tell them to do so. Mankind however can go beyond that, we can do that which is irrational and illogical. That is our great strength.

I always thought that reason was our strength. It's not only because it's how we're so advanced either, our state of rationality is the contrast against which fun is measured, otherwise fun wouldn't be as fun (like how our awareness of death is what makes life precious to us). The fact that we can lose ourselves to that which is irrational and illogical exists only because we're aware that it is irrational and illogical, and therein lies the allure. The followers of Bacchus dressed like animals and ate and mated like animals because animals aren't logical. They live according to impulse.

[prendrelemick]

Abstract thought.

[cacian]

I always thought that reason was our strength. It's not only because it's how we're so advanced either, our state of rationality is the contrast against which fun is measured, otherwise fun wouldn't be as fun (like how our awareness of death is what makes life precious to us). The fact that we can lose ourselves to that which is irrational and illogical exists only because we're aware that it is irrational and illogical, and therein lies the allure. The followers of Bacchus dressed like animals and ate and mated like animals because animals aren't logical. They live according to impulse.

About animals being not logical I am not sure I agree.
I feel animals are of the most radical and consistant nature in that they only mate between their own same speices .. This is an indication of their own understandind of species survial. In this very sense they are unique and very in touch with their environment. If that is consistancy and organisation then I do not know what is.
They also only ''kill'' when they need to eat. They understand that and do not diet or deprive themselves from eating because their need to survive is greater then their need to ''kill''. That is not impulsive that is intellgence of another kind.

Humans however are known to have desicrated some animals since the beginning of time and unfortunately some are exctinct. This is because Humans are impulsive and disorganised mentally and intellactually. Humans need a lesson from their other species, animals. That is what I call tragic.
Humans are at a stage now where they need to bow down very low in order to look up again.
A human is the most impulsive disorganised and distructive a being on this earth and unfortunately for them animals are better logical and consistand unlike their humans .
Sorry Juniper i do not mean disespectful to you, but Bacchus however he is need of an intellect upgrade.:wink5:

[PoeticPassions]

I always thought that reason was our strength. It's not only because it's how we're so advanced either, our state of rationality is the contrast against which fun is measured, otherwise fun wouldn't be as fun (like how our awareness of death is what makes life precious to us). The fact that we can lose ourselves to that which is irrational and illogical exists only because we're aware that it is irrational and illogical, and therein lies the allure. The followers of Bacchus dressed like animals and ate and mated like animals because animals aren't logical. They live according to impulse.

I actually think that people are rather unreasonable and irrational (not always, but a great deal of the time). Freud would say that, in fact, humans are not rational beings but ones that tend to rationalize their behaviors. We are intelligent enough to provide reasons for why we have done certain things, but that doesn't mean we are largely rational. I'd agree with Alex on that point... and I also do think, like Cacian, that animals (particularly primates, dolphins and other mammals) exhibit rational and logical behavior. The organize themselves in groups rationally, have hierarchies, engage in behaviors to mate, collect food, etc in a largely rational and logical manner... and you would never see a serial killer chimp who kills just for the hell of it or because the voices in its head told it to do so... Or, at least, I've never heard of one. Or animals that torture other animals for no apparent reason... so I rather think that animals act in a more structured and predictable way than humans.

[cacian]

The developments of pain releif

considering humans are self destructive one should think the next logical thing to do is to ensure there is prevention of pain as a result of their self pained inflicted nature.
So pain killers is most useful.

[Paulclem]

considering humans are self destructive one should think the next logical thing to do is to ensure there is prevention of pain as a result of their self pained inflicted nature.
So pain killers is most useful.

There is - the NHS and the Law.:cornut:

[cacian]

There is - the NHS and the Law.:cornut:

the law haha...the law cannot and does not stop you from hurting yourself in fact I cannot think of any law that says or states
'' it is illegal to hurt or pain one's self regardless of others''
:cornut:

[JuniperWoolf]

They also only ''kill'' when they need to eat.

That's not true. Chimps kill for fun, and they war (http://news.discovery.com/animals/chimp-war-behavior.html). Dolphins sometimes just bat other sea creatures with their noses for the hell of it, and not for food. The corpses have washed up on shore with dolphin nose marks all over them, and it's also been filmed (I'll try to find it; *edit* my computer doesn't have sound so I don't know about it's quality, but here's a random gang dolphin attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8NXACGZfrs&feature=related) on another animal. Not many views, could it be that humans would rather think of dolphins as heroic and look up "yay dolphin" videos, and that bias might affect public perception?). Young male elephants have been known to beat and skewer other animals to death for no reason (will try to find clip; *edit* This isn't the one I was looking for, but here's some elephants and rhinos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUjnCZxskf8) trying to kill each other and I doubt it's for food since they're both herbavores - likely it's for space or resources, which is exactly why humans kill each other).

Humans also aren't the only ones who kill simply because they want to. Alex actually put up an article earlier this month about penguins killing and raping other penguins, raping chicks mostly. I remember from that article, it took over one hundred years from when it was first observed for researchers to verify that the penguin rape and murder was actually occurring (not enough funding in the sciences you see, plus the original scientist didn't want to admit that the fluffy, cute little pengies would do such a thing).

The reason why it seems more common for humans to do these things is because humans publicize the actions of other humans, besides the occasional research team there's no one constantly watching groups of animals and reporting their deaths. Animals don’t have SIN numbers or news networks. So, it's not that the only psychological deviations are human, it's that the humans are more obvious about it. Our psychological deviants are able to think about their desires to hurt and torture, and they can plan what they want to do because they have a concept of time and impulse control (he can not kill the woman until she's secure in his basement). Psychological deviants in the animal kingdom can just act upon their impulse to cause harm, but they exist. How could they not? Even animal brains are complex enough that something must go wrong occasionally, just like it does for us.


Humans however are known to have desicrated some animals since the beginning of time and unfortunately some are exctinct.

We're also the only species known to commonly live with other species simply because we feel love for them (housecats, pet rabbits, ect.). The majority of humans feel compassion for animals, we truly love them, we put ourselves at a disadventage to take care of them, we mourn when they die. Try finding an example of that in the animal kingdom (well, I think that gorilla Coco was given a pet kitten that she was pretty fond of, but it doesn't happen very often). Actually, many people feel more compassion for animals than they do for their own species, I see that daily (it's really unsettling when it reaches PETA proportions, God PETA is creepy). If I were to ask around, I bet more of the people I encounter would experience more sadness if a puppy starved to death in a cage than if a child starved to death in Africa.

Animals go extinct for various reasons, and they will continue to do so, and new animals will come along, and that's how it's always been. Right now polar bears are "going extinct," but in reality they're migrating south and mating with the bears in Northern Canada, changing both species and maybe we'll see some branches form. That's how the biosphere works, you never see grey wolf fossils from the Pleistocene and you don't see dire wolves walking around today.

Some animals are extinct because of us but unintentionally, and that's to be expected. When something new happens in the ecological web it affect everything around it, and we're new (especially in our current state, very new, ~3000ish years), and we're widely distributed. You can't see the strings of the web of life, so you can't know what's going to happen if your existance causes this one or that one to be tugged. We can't predict changes, but we can attempt damage control, and maybe we'll succeed. The jury's out on that. It's good that we're trying though, and I think the fact that we are trying reflects well on humanity.

Sometimes species go extinct because we over-kill them, that's intentional. The thing is, we're able to not only use our environment but truly perceive it and conceptualize it, and to think about it in abstract ways and in terms of the future. Many humans don’t want tigers and whales to go extinct because some people want to eat their penis for it’s magic powers, humans have conceptualized that situation and decided to fight against it, and that’s a damn good thing and a good sign in my opinion. That’s advancement, born from higher logic and morality and a love of, and desire for the continued existance of, beauty.


Sorry Juniper i do not mean disespectful to you, but Bacchus however he is need of an intellect upgrade.:wink5:

I'll let him know next time I see him.


Freud would say that, in fact, humans are not rational beings but ones that tend to rationalize their behaviors.

Freud said a lot of things, most of which no one in the scientific community takes seriously anymore because it was all unsubstantiated.


The organize themselves in groups rationally, have hierarchies, engage in behaviors to mate, collect food, etc in a largely rational and logical manner... and you would never see a serial killer chimp who kills just for the hell of it or because the voices in its head told it to do so...

That's an anthropomorphic way to think of it, chimps don't have language and I doubt they have the impulse control to be serial killers. However, you'll see chimps use rocks to smash the heads in of other chimps, especially if they are from another tribe. What you won't see is a chimp using complex language, making advancements in science or technology or math, mulling over moral philosophy, creating something for the sheer beauty of it. These things are born from our capacity for higher reason. Our advanced intelligence can cause harm, we can created powerful technology to destroy, our wars are more destructive, and our mental deviants are more dangerous. Mental deviants will always exist, they're not a reflection on humanity as a whole. As for war, these feelings of wishing for destruction, that’s the animal in us. That’s the ancient, primal part of our brain saying “kill that which is not of your tribe, kill The Other, if it’s not like you then there’s something wrong with it.” It’s our capacity for higher logic, conceptual thought, and morality which tells us “they’re like us, they just look and talk different, and those differences are superficial.”

[YesNo]

We're also the only species known to commonly live with other species simply because we feel love for them (housecats, pet rabbits, ect.). The majority of humans feel compassion for animals, we truly love them, we put ourselves at a disadventage to take care of them, we mourn when they die. Try finding an example of that in the animal kingdom (well, I think that gorilla Coco was given a pet kitten that she was pretty fond of, but it doesn't happen very often). Actually, many people feel more compassion for animals than they do for their own species, I see that daily (it's really unsettling when it reaches PETA proportions, God PETA is creepy). If I were to ask around, I bet more of the people I encounter would experience more sadness if a puppy starved to death in a cage than if a child starved to death in Africa.
I agree with you about animals killing for sport. I've seen the dog I used to have do that. That's one of the reason I had to keep it chained.

Regarding whether they can feel compassion for other species, here is a video of a crow helping a kitten which makes me think that that can happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo

I think animals are likely to have similar behaviors to ours.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There are plenty of documented cases of animals helping another species, usually a mother nursing another animal of a different species. Not too long ago I saw a video of a dog and elephant that were best friends. It was quite touching.

I think the examples of animals warring and all that are kind of misleading, as they're isolated incidents--a few certain species acting out. It's funny that the more intelligent a species, the more potential for cruelty arises. I guess that's why we get to build nuclear bombs.

And I also read about the penguin thing, but a lot of scientists don't think most of what they did was out malice, but out of misunderstanding--one scientist said a recently dead penguin mimics many subservient qualities a female penguin does when presenting herself for mating, hence the necrophilia.

I think all the examples from the animal kingdom prove are the more intelligent an animal, the more it has a capacity for love and cruelty. Sure, one can point to humans and say we're unlike animals because we love and feel compassion for this and that because we're smart enough to, but we also build weapons of mass destruction and commit acts of cruelty on a much more frequent basis than animals. It goes both ways.

[Alexander III]

I'm pretty sure they do, at least some of them. Need to get one of the biology people in here. Still, that doesn't mean it isn't a great thing about being human.

A Male pig's orgasm lasts on average 30 minutes. Thats right, think about every orgasm you have ever had, an intense burst of pleasure which lasts few mere seconds. Now imagine that same intensity of pleasure, but instead of a few seconds, it is 30 fcking minutes of that mortal bliss which we know all to well.

Of-course it could be argued that humans have the advantage of being able to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the woman whom is giving them the orgasm, and the knowledge of giving pleasure augments the pleasure gained, meaning that though the physical pleasure it but an iota of that which the pig experiences, the human overall pleasure is much higher as he may better appreciate it. Hunger is the finest sauce after-all.

But still...30 fcking minutes.... I don't normally swear but I think only the word "fcking" expresses the true impact and neurological big bang which results from the understanding of this concept; a 30 minute long orgasm. Repeat that slowly and attempt to savor those words for a moment. Stars die with less majesty than that.

[Alexander III]

I should clarify that I diagree with cacian and Poetic when they imply that animal's are more moral than us, that I do not agree with, they are just as bad if not far worse. I think I posted a link a couple weeks back of adolescent penguins which would rape and kill baby chicks, and make their parents watch.

Animals for the most part are morally grotesque to the same extent as humans. But the key difference is that their morally questionable behavior is logical. A young male lion which conquers a new Pride, kills all the cubs of the previous Alpha male. Moral, no. Logical yes. It ensures that his genes get passed on and not the ones of the weaker male. Animal cruelty is logical in the majority of cases. Chimps have war over teritory and kill, just like men have war over territory and kill. In both cases man and chimp, it is immoral but logical.

But Humans...well here is one of my favorite passages in history:

Sedley was reputed as a notorious rake and libertine, part of the "Merry Gang" gang of courtiers which included the Earl of Rochester and Charles Sackville, Lord Buckhurst. In 1663 an indecent frolic in Bow Street, for which he was fined 2000 marks, made Sedley notorious. From the balcony of Oxford Kate's Tavern he, Lord Buckhurst and Sir Thomas Ogle shocked and delighted a crowd of onlookers with their blasphemous and obscene antics. According to Samuel Pepys, Sedley `showed his nakedness - acting all the postures of lust and buggery that could he imagined, and abusing of scripture ... preaching a Mountebank sermon from that pulpit ... that being done, he took a glass of wine and washed his prick in it and then drank it off; and then took another and drank the King's health'. This behaviour provoked a riot amongst the onlookers and condemnation in the courts, where the Lord Chief Justice gave his opinion that it was because of wretches like him "that God's anger and judgement hang over us"


And Juniper as for you we can only understand the irrational trough reason, that is faults as it could just as well be said the other way round, We can only understand reason because we posses the faculty of the Irrational. After all lets face it, Look at the great, the truly great men of history. They were mad. there was more of Dinosyious than Apollo in them.


Here are the instructions of Alexander The Great, for what to do after his Death (these were written far before he contacted his fatal illness)


The testament called for military expansion into the southern and western Mediterranean, monumental constructions, and the intermixing of Eastern and Western populations. It included:
Construction of a monumental tomb for his father Philip, "to match the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt"
Erection of great temples in Delos, Delphi, Dodona, Dium, Amphipolis, and a monumental temple to Athena at Troy
Conquest of Arabia and the entire Mediterranean Basin
Circumnavigation of Africa
Development of cities and the "transplant of populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continent to common unity and to friendship by means of intermarriage and family ties."

Oh and let me speak of the funeral he hosted for his Hephaestion;

Hephaestion was given a magnificent funeral. Its cost is variously given in the sources as 10,000 talents or 12,000 talents. It is difficult to give a modern equivalent for such a huge amount, but we know that in Hephaestion’s time, the daily wage of a skilled worker was two or three drachmas. Today, in western Europe, 2008, that would be between £50 and £100, so the lowest possible value for 1 drachma in modern terms is £25. We know there were 6,000 drachmas in a talent, so even at the most conservative estimate, Hephaestion’s funeral would have cost £1,500,000,000. Alexander himself drove the funeral carriage part of the way back to Babylon, with some of the driving entrusted to Hephaestion's friend Perdiccas. At Babylon, funeral games were held in Hephaestion's honour. The contests ranged from literature to athletics, and 3,000 competitors took part, the festival eclipsing anything that had gone before, both in cost and in numbers taking part. Plutarch says that Alexander planned to spend ten thousand talents on the funeral and the tomb. He employed Stasicrates, "... as this artist was famous for his innovations, which combined an exceptional degree of magnificence, audacity and ostentation ...", to design the pyre for Hephaestion.
The pyre was sixty metres high, square in shape, and built in stepped levels. The first level was decorated with two hundred and forty ships with golden prows, each of these adorned with armed figures, and with red banners filling the spaces between. On the second level were torches, with snakes at the base, golden wreaths in the middle, and at the top, flames surmounted by eagles. The third level showed a hunting scene, and the fourth a battle of centaurs, all done in gold. On the fifth level, also in gold, were lions and bulls, and on the sixth, the arms of Macedon and Persia. The seventh and final level bore sculptures of sirens, hollowed out to conceal a choir who would sing a lament. It is possible that the pyre was not burnt, but that it was actually intended as a tomb or lasting memorial; if so, it is likely that it was never completed, as there are references to expensive, uncompleted projects at the time of Alexander's own death.


Let's face it, Don Quixote is the human personification of the Promethian spark of Genius which is in the anima of mankind.
One final tribute remained, and it is compelling in its simplicity and in what it reveals about the high esteem in which Hephaestion was held by Alexander. On the day of the funeral, he gave orders that the sacred flame in the temple should be extinguished. Normally, this was only done on the death of the Great King himself.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How did the penguins make the parents watch? Did they make them watch, or did they just stand there, watching because, you know, they're dumb ****ing penguins.

[cafolini]

On every tree there sits a bird
Singing a song of love
On every tree there sits a bird
And every one I ever heard
Could break my heart
Without a word
Singing a song of love

A song of love is a sad song
Hi-li Hi-lili Hi-lo
A song of love is a song of woe
Don't ask me how I know
A song of love is a sad song
For I have loved and it's so

KAPER, BRONISLAW/DEUTSCH, HELEN

[Paulclem]

I think ascribing morality to animals is an expectation too far. They are instinctive, though as we have seen can commit acts which, from our point of view are cruel and kind.

I don't think you can call an animal immoral in the same way that children are evaluated in extreme criminal cases on their understanding of right and wrong. You can't evaluate an animal's understanding of right or wrong, because they don't have the mind to deal with these abstract cocepts. That's not to say that they don't do cruel things, but even that phrase pre-supposes that an animal will commit an act for the mental pleasure of it. they don't. Play is probably the closest approximation of it such as when a cats plays with a live mouse and eventually kills it.

Humans normally have a choice and an awareness of the effects of an act and an understanding of its acceptability. Animals have none of this.

[Paulclem]

On every tree there sits a bird
Singing a song of love
On every tree there sits a bird
And every one I ever heard
Could break my heart
Without a word
Singing a song of love

A song of love is a sad song
Hi-li Hi-lili Hi-lo
A song of love is a song of woe
Don't ask me how I know
A song of love is a sad song
For I have loved and it's so

KAPER, BRONISLAW/DEUTSCH, HELEN

That's nice

[YesNo]

There were a couple scenes in the movie March of the Penguins, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428803/ , that have kept me thinking that the difference between us and these animals is one more of quality than quantity.

1) At one point a penguin left the group to die. The bird just walked off alone. It committed suicide. I think it knew what it was doing.

2) When a penguin realized that its egg had frozen and died, it tried to take away the living egg from another bird. The other birds in the group immediately realized what was happening and stopped it. That scene showed heartbreak, resourcefulness and social organization.

[Monamy]

Mistakes

[Darcy88]

Eating.

[JuniperWoolf]

Alex makes good points. However, would Alexander the Great have been able to become "great" in the first place if not for the application of arms, armor, and military stradegy? Would he even know what death was if not for the higher cognative ability and conceptual thought that sets humanity apart? Would anything that he had built be more than a pile of rocks if not for archetecture, if not for math? Would we know anything about his conquests it if not for written language? Would anyone be able to organize and carry out anything if not for spoken language? Madness is the spark, but the spark would barely flicker if not for higher cognitive process.

I do think that it isn't one or the other which makes us great. It's both. Imagine an entirely rational world, how dull.


There are plenty of documented cases of animals helping another species, usually a mother nursing another animal of a different species. Not too long ago I saw a video of a dog and elephant that were best friends. It was quite touching.

I think the examples of animals warring and all that are kind of misleading, as they're isolated incidents--a few certain species acting out.

Wouldn't you say that, since recorded incidences of animals helping other species or being "friends" (especially without the guidance of man ie. a human giving a baby chimp to a gorilla to nurse), being far more uncommon, especially in the natural world, that these would be the isolated incidents? You can find many more examples of animals behaving violently, that's how they react when their territory or resources or offspring are threatened - just like us. I could cause my dog to bite my hand right now if I tried to take his bone. Our tendancy to fight and war is the animal in us, it's primal. It's "mine, mine, mine!"


I think ascribing morality to animals is an expectation too far. They are instinctive, though as we have seen can commit acts which, from our point of view are cruel and kind.

I agree with this, you can't call an animal "bad." It's just reacting to impulse.

[cacian]

Eating.

hehe that is a very good point:D

[Maximilianus]

Attaining the goal of feeling a woman's breath in one's face, and her hair entwined with one's fingers.

[byquist]

The possibility of self-improvement; new opportunity every morning.

Ultimately, selflessness and self-abnegation is greatness, the higher dimension, the higher order. Other-directedness. Some humans achieve it and the rest of us clods can learn from them.

[cacian]

I think ascribing morality to animals is an expectation too far. They are instinctive, though as we have seen can commit acts which, from our point of view are cruel and kind.

Morality and animals are two different things for the simple reason that animals do not talk and we do.
Morality is a speech a judgement a point of view that requires language to be passed on and without it there is no morality.

I don't think you can call an animal immoral in the same way that children are evaluated in extreme criminal cases on their understanding of right and wrong. You can't evaluate an animal's understanding of right or wrong, because they don't have the mind to deal with these abstract cocepts. That's not to say that they don't do cruel things, but even that phrase pre-supposes that an animal will commit an act for the mental pleasure of it. they don't. Play is probably the closest approximation of it such as when a cats plays with a live mouse and eventually kills it.
Animals do not have concepts of play with other animal different from them for the simple reason they do not understand the difference because they see it as a threat.
Animals have instincts and are very territorial which helps their survival.
The cat and the mouse is just an example of survival and going by the way the cat was behaving is suggesting that it implied it was bigger and faster then mouse and such ended up killing it as you put it.
Animals only 'play' with their own species.


Humans normally have a choice and an awareness of the effects of an act and an understanding of its acceptability. Animals have none of this.
I have to disagree with you and with all due respect to you Paulclem.
Animals are extremely organised territorial agile and above all instinctive. T They are much better behaved then the whole of mankind put together.
Their survival on this planet is most important and so they naturally better at keeping together. They understand nature better then you and me because they are 100% exposed to it. Notice birds migration for example they understand the weather and they understand that they need to move in order to survive because of the harsh weather.
This one of the many things animals do better then humans unfortunately humans are incessant in pursuing animals in taking them out of their habitats and generally polltuting and messing about with their chain of survival.
Many humans attach themselves to wild animals tunring in them into pets which then messes about with their continuity and ultimately their instincts of a wilde animal turn into a human one which contribute to their extinct. Humans are extremely selfish and detrimental and are a constant threat to the animal kingdom.