 |
| |
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
If you don't include that part of the definition of 'nature' you really don't have a word at all. There's no use for it. |
Yes you do. Words have different meanings. Type in the word "natural" into dictionary.com. The first entry has 13 different usages of the adjective "natural" Your usage is reflected in definitions 6 and 10. Those are completely valid uses of the term natural. I'm using natural in the sense of "existing as a part of or determined by nature", definition 2a in the 2nd entry.
Natural is a word with many meanings; perhaps it would be better if we'd use synonyms in such a situation
quote:
Of course civilization is dictated by natural laws, and we have to follow them, however, we use the natural laws to change nature. So using the natural laws to change nature is not natural. |
I'm not even talking about "natural laws." I'm just saying that what we do is the natural outcropping of our traits.We change nature in the sense that we change the wild. However, I disagree that this is "unnatural." That Quinn quote implies that, by changing the world around us, we've left nature or somehow have broken with the rest of the world. I disagree with this. I think that, though we can greatly change nature, our basis for doing this and our ability to do so lies in natural abilities. We've no more left the natural order than any other animlas that use their traits to survive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Those other types of ownership haven't 'always existed' and can not be justified by pointing to Bushmen, dogs and toddlers. |
No, they haven't always existed. Rather, they come into existance as a society evolves. The point of the trinket hypo. is to show that their is some innate possesion desire in man. The application of that desire changes as societal sophistication grows, but the desire has been there in some form. I object to the idea that man's desire to have things of their own is some foreign concept. Its always been there at some basic level.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The thing is that humans have the ability to create any order that they wish. That's what seperates us from other animals. Animals only have one possible order if any social order at all. |
I think that that's a function of intelligence, not some other type of metaphysical distinction. If some other animal develops a similar intellect they'll also be able to create any order that they wish. That's why I think we' haven't left nature, we're just using the tools nature gave us. Every other animal uses their natural tools in the way they can. We're no different in that sense. They only real difference between us and them is the tools that we have developed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Thats why you can say that animal social orders are natural, but human social orders are not. |
True, our societal order is variable. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that fact doesn't mean that we're unnatural and somehow apart from the natural order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Humans don't live within the ecological system. If they did, a) they wouldn't have so much control over it, and b) we'd coexist with nature. This isn't the case. We wipe out the ecological systems around us, not naturally, but by simply destroying it. And this isn't done by overhunting. We don't chop down trees for food. We simply destroy the ecological systems in order for us to have more room.
This is different from any other organism. |
We live within the eco-system by definition. We still eat, die, decompose and provide food to worms. We've just carved out a particularly large niche in this system. However, we're part of the system no matter how much we alter it. If we change our eco-system so much that we can no longer live in it, we will go extinct, just like all other organisms who adapted in ways that ultimately led to their demise. The eco-system would still be there; we'd be gone. The exception to this is if we somehow destroyed the world utterly. Then the eco-system would be gone as well.
We're different from any other organism only because no other organism has our same skill set. Give that same skill set to another mammal and they'd do the same type of things. Other animals over populate until their numbers dwindle through starvation. Humanity has found a way to produce food to survive with a high population level, a population that needs more space. If other animals could permanently raise their access to food (if they could do agricultre) their populations would permanently rise as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
People still like having trinkets. And that's as far as the innateness goes. You might as well argue that a tiger jumping through a flaming hoop is innate. After all, its ability to jump has always been there at some basic level, it just the 'application' of this ability which has changed. |
No, that analogy doesn't make sense. I'd say a tiger's jumping ability is innate. I'd say that its innate to human nature to want to possess things. The applications of those traits differ through situations.
quote:
Oh, and society doesn't just 'evolve' like some organism. A lot of social arrangements serve no purpose. Others serve only a few people. Others harm the society. |
What does the Human appendix do?
Societies certainly do evolve and change, and change from a variety of different stimuli. Some quick examples off the top of my head:
The Black Death dropped population throughout Europe, making labor much more expensive and therefore people more valuable. New views at looking at people lead to new schools of thought and philosophies, encouraging a more inquisitive intellectual class, setting the foundations for the Reformation and ultimately the end of Feudalism
Technological advancements during the Industrial Revolution led to rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization changed perspectives on many existing social/ political/ philosophical areas. New political groups emerged and, after conflict, the end result was mass democracy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Our social order became unnatural when we changed it. There can only be one natural way, not two or more. |
I guess that's where our ultimate disagreement lies. I don't think that there's any predetermined natural social order. I don't believe in natural rights or natural philosophical laws. I'm saying natural as in we're just as much invloved in the eco-system of this planet as any other animal; that we came upon our intelligence, our society, and our technological progress through natural means (evolved them) rather than some outside/ unnatural means (divine intervention); and, taking those things as granted, humanity putting their natural skills to use through an agricultural society does not constitute Humanity leaving the eco-system or controlling the eco-system.
EDIT: if you've lost what I'm talking about, look at my first response to Macleod's Quinn quote.
Last edited by Wycoff on 13-11-2004 at 04:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
but they also have stuff which was NEVER useful. Like ballet. Or people who collect Barbie dolls. Or the belief that vitamin C cures colds. |
A person who collects Barbie dolls has more meaning in life and therefore is less likely to blow things up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Good post Wycoff near the bottom on page 1
quote:
Actually, I believe Daniel Quinn's theory on the fall from grace. Humans lived within the ecological system just like any other organism. Then, they ate the apple that made them like God. They became aware of the nakedness, etc. This represents them discovering that if they become sedentary agrarians, they can step out of the system and instead control it. In essence, they were becoming God by doing this. This is what eating that apple was. |
Eating the apple was sexual - procreation. That's why they knew they were naked and wore fig leaves. The "Serpent" harkens back to the Sumerian god, Ea or Enki, who was responsible for our creation. Even in the Bible it is the Serpent who is responsible for Adam and Eve having children, not God. He was mad because they had sex and conceived. He didn't want his Garden being over run with humans...
Kid, forget about societies not agreeing on morality. You've already argued rules and morality were imposed on us by rulers so what society says about morality is irrelevant. What is relevant is our common desires. People don't want to be murdered, that is ~universal. Pointing to murderers doesn't refute that. Take any individual who has not assimilated into a culture and attack them to see what happens. They'll try to avoid the attack. That is an instinct we share, a "desire" to live. Existence alone creates a right, a moral claim, to exist.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2004 02:23
|