Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:05:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1557 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <37DD1065.31A4EEC8@eclipse.net>...
> <37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FHzyB1.3zB@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> > Animals live by instinct (which is a perfect moral code - we agree! ;-).
> > Instinct is the only knowledge animals have, they can not gain more
> > knowledge (other than "to know" their surroundings) and they can not act • in
> > a fashion that is not in accordance with their knowledge.
>
> I'm not trying to take this out of context, but do you really mean this?
> If not, what do you mean? If so, I guess you've never encountered a
> non-human animal, have you? Most of the critters that people think of
> as animals do learn. Exactly like people learn, just not as much. The
> smartest (verbally, anyway) of the 14 or so cats that I've had in my
> life clearly knew 22 distinct words. I believe that she was not born
> with instinctual knowledge of those words.
I covered this a little in my other post. I like cats, and I like the
Eliot poem that ends like this:
pondering the thought of thought of thought of his name...
his deep and inscrutable singular name.
but I don't believe animals think - they can be trained, they can't reason.
They can train each other, but they can't teach each other. There is a fine
line, but there is a difference. People can be trained, but they can also
be taught. Animals can model - they can copy the actions of other animals
or humans, but thats not a conscious decision on their part. Their emotions
are instinctive, too, I think. Just as they have an inate desire for food,
some also have a desire for companionship (just like people) and pleasure.
Their greatest pleasure is food (those gluttons!) and then sex (which can be
replaced, especially if you make them lame). A lot of similarities, but
they don't reason. Animals are cool. Even if I am wrong about the way they
think, I still know a society of human beings won't work if we reduce
ourselves to animals...
> > Their instinct is
> > all they have to survive - if that knowledge is insufficient, they don't.
>
> Just like people, other animals have instinct and wit. They are both
> used to survive.
>
> > People can act irrationally - they can go against their better judgment -
> > people don't live by instinct - people can have very flawed morals. My
> > point, is that animals can not act immorally, while people can.
>
> I do tend to agree with this. The animals that I have known well enough
> to have an opinion on were not cognitively complex enough to have a
> sense of morality. I have never worked with bonobos, porpoises, or pigs
though.
Right, they aren't cognitively complex enough to have morality, they
can't do wrong, they can't choose to do wrong. People can choose to do
wrong - wrong has to be defined, which is why we have morality, and you
could say animals don't. Although they do, and they adhere to it,
instinctively. Our instincts tell us to take whatever we want, to rape
whoever we want, to eat whatever we want, to take a leak wherever we want (a
lot like animals). We can't have a society with these instincts. We can't
survive solely on our instincts, but we can by denying them, unlike any
other entity. So we have to live by reason, with a morality devised from
reason, and the better the morals are, the better the society.
> --Chris
--
Have fun!
John
Auctions and Trading and More at my Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
