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 21:05:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote in message
> David Eaton wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: • <snip>
> > Instinct is tricky. I think the traditional view of instinct is partially
> > flawed, though. We tend to think of instinct as that which results • without
> > thought. We pull our hand away from the hot stove out of instinct, not • because
> > we thought about it.
> That would be reflex, an involuntary response. In your hot stove example, • one can
> overcome that reflex (see intro to Kung Fu;). But when taken by surprise,
> however, I think reflexes are automatic.
David, I think you are using definition #1, while we are using definition
#2...
1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct
for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make
a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli
without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below
the conscious level
The dictionary itself shows us that there are different "levels" as you
said. My point is that animals aren't able to reason. They act according
to instinct (#2 above), not reason. Definition 2b covers even more -
showing that animals might be trained (through repetitive use of cause and
effect) but they can't reason, they can't comprehend that which we (most of
us? some of us?) can. They can't comprehend good or bad, justice, charity,
or any of the things we have been discussing. They don't know such things,
and thus their morals are perfect *for them*. Nietzsche seemed to admire
that in them. A human being is a superior being, there is no doubt in my
mind, and like it or not, does not have an automatic, unbreakable moral.
Man has the greatest tool of survival of any creature, the mind, but he has
to choose to use it. Choosing not to is immoral.
> > However, I think that instinct goes to different levels.
> > When someone points out an error you've made, you might have an inital • reaction
> > of disbelief, before you actually qualify what the person is saying.
>
> We might be dealing with semantics here, because I would call a reaction • like that
> a learned one. I look at instincts as behaviors with which animals are • born in
> order to survive. Most animals in the wild don't have the time to learn • the stuff
> necessary to survive, or the mental capacity to teach it. Instinct takes • care of
> that.
>
> > Or you
> > might have an instinct towards anger or sadness when you see people being
> > harmed. Certainly we've seen this last one reflected in animals, who • supposedly
> > only have capacity for instinct and not for thought. Where is the line • between
> > instinct and reflective thought? I'm not sure there is such a definite • line.
>
> I agree. It is gray. I find it especially muddy in human sexuality. • Seems to
> me that it is in this area where we as a society seem to think it is fine • to
> regress to giving in to base (instinctive) desires (watch TV for about 2
minutes).
That depends on the society, but ours is prety base in that regard. We
seem pretty animalistic in a lot of other ways, too.
> > One might actually call the action of thought instinctive to humans, • which
> > makes even all the things we think about instinctive. It's certainly one • way to
> > look at it.
>
> Yes, but for me it dilutes the distinction between the two. I see humans • as
> creatures attempting to *rise above* instinctual behavior in an attempt to • be more
> fully human.
I agree. Then you have the US Army, touting "Be all you can be" but
training animals to kill and live in a pecking order. We could be better -
ironic.
> > As for it being the ultimate moral code? I'd have to say no. (Not
> > just because I discredit the ideal of having an ultimate moral code, • though)
> > Mostly because instincts within humans and within animals differ so • greatly
> > from one to another. My instincts and your instincts differ easily, I'd • think.
> > Also, instinct might lead us towards self-preservation when I think the
> > ultimate moral code would lead toward societal preservation (charity • being one
> > aspect of that)
>
> I meant that instinct is a perfect moral code *for animals* I think • inapplicable
> to humans. *Because* we can reason and think for ourselves, we have
> outgrown/evolved beyond that moral code. Much of our problems as a race of • beings
> stem from the fact that we are caught in the middle, being pulled by two • sets of
> directives. And I would say that letting oneself be directed by • instinctual
> behaviors is the easy way, requiring little thought or introspection. Also • don't
> have to take a lot of responsibility. Trying to become (what I would call)
> authentically human takes work and diligence AND, as I believe, requires • help from
> God. How this occurs other than by following the example and teaching of • Jesus I
> cannot explain, but I believe it does.
I agree that being animals is wrong, John, but how does God help in being
fully human?
> > "love thy neighbor as thy brother" or "love thy neighbor as thyself" (or • maybe
> > it was neither, but it was similar) I'd say the latter is more 'correct',
> > though, in a sense unlike it was intended. The idea of the quote being to • get
> > people to love others more. For those who hold others above themselves, • they
> > need to learn to love themselves more. Basically, ultimate equality. Very
> > difficult, very noble. Possible? Maybe. I can't say
Thats interesting. It could be what the writer meant. Its a good play on
words, and I have one, too. Somebody wrote, "I think therefore I am."
Someone else wrote, "To be or not to be..." On the latter, I see "to think
or not to think."
Earlier in this post, I said choosing not to use the mind is immoral,
because that is the tool we have for survival. What is moral to animals is
to do whatever they can to promote their lives. For a person to live
morally, he should use the tools he has to promote his life. Primarily his
mind. This is where life affirming comes in. Using your mind in a life
affirming way is moral, not using it in a life affirming way is immoral, but
we've been there.
--
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 has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
