|
Post by maximus on Feb 28, 2008 17:59:53 GMT
maximus you look a little taller today. It's the Human Growth Hormone, 'ya know.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 28, 2008 21:19:20 GMT
I would venture that Lucifer, or Satan, lies within each of us, representative of the dark side of our nature. We must confront and integrate this aspect of our nature in order to become whole. The only evil lies within ourselves. Well said. I especially like your having added "or Satan." It galls me to hear the illustrious title "Lucifer" used in a demonic context. It was originally used thus as a rhetorical oxymoron and subsequently stuck, with barely any sense of the intended irony.
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Mar 3, 2008 14:14:08 GMT
My dog does murder anyone; plus he's got the morals of a Mason - he's loyal, a constant companion by my side, he would do anything for me, i know he loves me, he would never turn his back on me... I think you forget about the commitment not to lie with the wife or daughter of a fellow Mason, which would probably exclude your dog. My experience has been, my dog or anybody else's dog will run off with the first willing bitch that comes along.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 3, 2008 15:06:38 GMT
if you think about it their are even animals that are ethical and moral and i know they are too dumb to even fathom god or read the bible. There are no animals that have ethics or morals, other than man. Animals are incapable of comprehending abstract philosophical concepts.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 3, 2008 17:55:22 GMT
Our ancient ancestors being animals - when did they become 'man'?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Mar 3, 2008 18:11:19 GMT
Problem is that we cannot ascertain if animals have ethics or not, there is no way to tell, especially since with our own species, Humanity, there is great variation in what is considered "Ethical" between various Nations, Creeds, Races etc. I would not be surprised if the Great Whales, Dolphins etc do not have "Ethics" but as we are still unable to communicate with them how can we tell? Certainly the Japanese have no ethics in this regard anyway as they kill them under the lie of "Scientific Research"
As to when did we become "Man", I do not know to be honest, that is like asking when does a human get a soul? At Conception, Birth, at the point of Extra Uterine Viability?
As God made us in His image and likeness, some would hold that we have always been "Man" and not animals.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2008 19:22:52 GMT
Our ancient ancestors being animals - when did they become 'man'? Either a, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Conundrum or a question of where does one "draws the line?"—Indeed, is the process complete?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2008 19:50:31 GMT
Problem is that we cannot ascertain if animals have ethics or not I would not like to deny the possibility. Contrary to an example given in another post about dogs and sexual infidelity, many animals mate for life. However, I doubt this constitutes ethical behaviour, as it may be largely attributable to instinct, smacks of human convention and leads us towards a Disney view of animal behaviour. Washoe, a chimpanzee who communicated by sign-language, apparently grasped a number of abstract concepts, while baboons have been seen to demonstrate self-sacrifice for the greater good, when attacked by leopards. From my "personal" perspective, in which there is but one life, of which we are each expressions, I am inclined to think that some degree of "ethical behaviour" is characteristic of all life and that humans neither have a monopoly over other sentient beings in this regard nor have we necessarily mastered it as yet. Indeed this may be the purpose of our present stage of spiritual evolution. Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 3:22
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 3, 2008 22:05:47 GMT
Our ancient ancestors being animals - when did they become 'man'? At the point that they became self-aware, and cognizant of thier own mortality.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 4, 2008 0:08:31 GMT
At the point that they became self-aware, and cognizant of thier own mortality.
And animals don't?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 4, 2008 15:04:25 GMT
At the point that they became self-aware, and cognizant of thier own mortality.And animals don't? No.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Mar 4, 2008 18:09:49 GMT
One dearly loved Cat I had was dying and sick though he was tried to get out of the house as I am sure he wanted to die away from the ex-wife and I and alone. Please don't tell me he was not then aware of his own impending decease.
It is also held by some that elephants know when their death is near if it is from disease or injury though I don't suppose they are any more aware of sudden death ,e.g. being shot, than we would be in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 4, 2008 20:45:36 GMT
One dearly loved Cat I had was dying and sick though he was tried to get out of the house as I am sure he wanted to die away from the ex-wife and I and alone. Please don't tell me he was not then aware of his own impending decease. It is also held by some that elephants know when their death is near if it is from disease or injury though I don't suppose they are any more aware of sudden death ,e.g. being shot, than we would be in most cases. Animals have what I would classify as a limited self-awareness, i.e., that they are cognazant of immanant death through injury, or sickness, but they do not contemplate the consequences of such in the same manner as man. I doubt that animals think about an afterlife, where thier "souls" go after thier demise. Self-preservation is an instinct inherent in all species, and long-lived species such as elephants show concern for members of thier family units. But, animals do not bury thier dead, or perform religious rites, or worship a creative principle.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Mar 4, 2008 22:18:31 GMT
Yes Tamrin, RI in this case does mean Religious Instruction.
I agree that the Elephant does not hold a funeral service nor dig a grave, but there have been filmed cases of elephants going back to the place where one of their number died and carrying away the bones from the skeleton once the flesh has rotted away. Now as it is only bones that are left I would not think this is only instinct kicking in with them removing a source of disease or possible attractant to preditors as a corpse would be.
Alas we have no way of knowing what an animal thinks as we cannot as yet communicate with them, (perhaps St Francis could), although I understand that experiments have been performed with some of the primates such as Bonobos (Pan paniscus) and with Dolphins.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 4, 2008 22:26:40 GMT
Bro Max - You have changed your language - now you have doubts. We simply don't know what animals think - in fact I don't presume to know what someone else may think. Animals do have sense of impending death and do perform rites after death and do demonstrate a keen sense of togetherness. That they do not bury their dead may say something about the lack of technology as anything else. There is less that 2% difference between the DNA of a chimp and a human. In the context of this thread I would argue that I have seen animals display superior ethics than that of many so-called humans.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 4, 2008 23:11:40 GMT
Bro Max - You have changed your language - now you have doubts. I am always open to new data. I still maintain that animals are incapable of comprehending ethics or morals. Man's consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces. "For the New Intellectual," pg. 14.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 5, 2008 0:09:32 GMT
I still maintain that animals are incapable of comprehending ethics or morals. But - they are capable of affection and/or attachment. Might this not cause them to be what we would consider to be caring towards their own, if not others? (bit like some people when you think of it. Honour among thieves and all that) Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 5, 2008 0:14:57 GMT
But - they are capable of affection and/or attachment. Might this not cause them to be what we would consider to be caring towards their own, if not others? Yes. My Labrador Retriever is very attached to me, and jealous when my wife gets between us. I doubt that she has a clue what the stars are, or what is going to happen tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 5, 2008 2:11:15 GMT
Excellent question Sniffles... much to ponder there. I remember the story. I wonder how she is going now.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 5, 2008 2:37:33 GMT
Her potentiality for "human-ness" was subordinated by her upbringing. There is a limited window, during childhood development, for learning language and social skills. We are all born with the same potential, it is crucial that we are imparted the social skills nessesary to interact with others when young. As she was raised by dogs, she would have learned to act and communicate as a dog, and it will be a long and difficult process to "unlearn" the early programming.
It's the "GIGO" priniciple - Garbage In, Garbage Out."
It is much more difficult to break a bad habit than to never have aquired it in the first place.
|
|