At our core---are we animal?

[Rellik San]

zz1000zz

Rellik San

zz1000zz

Rellik San

zz1000zz

Rellik San

Simply put the two strongest human urges... no matter how much we deny it.

Eat
Procreate.

So the answer is yes.

I deny it. Are you calling me a liar?

So you have no desire to eat and to seek a mate?

So you want to starve a lonely person do you?

I doubt that, so yes I'm calling you out.

Would you mind not offering straw men? You said "the two strongest human urges," and i disagreed. I never said i do not feel those urges at all, simply they are not the strongest for me.

For the record though, i am incapable of feeling hunger, so at least on that one the answer is certainly no.

But I assume thats down to a medical condition, not a mental one?

In either event, it would serve to disprove your point.

Not necessarily, as that would be one piece of anecdotal evidence, the fact is, the will to survive is there and whilst you may not get hungry, the will to survive is why you eat.  

[DioRte]

Just because you refuse to accept the fact that we share all the characteristics that define an animal as an animal doesn't mean we're not animals. You can not believe it all you want, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don' believe I'm a plant or a mineral, so I'm gonna go with animal.  

[Sinister Kung Fu]

zz1000zz

Rellik San

zz1000zz

Rellik San

zz1000zz

Rellik San

Simply put the two strongest human urges... no matter how much we deny it.

Eat
Procreate.

So the answer is yes.

I deny it. Are you calling me a liar?

So you have no desire to eat and to seek a mate?

So you want to starve a lonely person do you?

I doubt that, so yes I'm calling you out.

Would you mind not offering straw men? You said "the two strongest human urges," and i disagreed. I never said i do not feel those urges at all, simply they are not the strongest for me.

For the record though, i am incapable of feeling hunger, so at least on that one the answer is certainly no.

But I assume thats down to a medical condition, not a mental one?

In either event, it would serve to disprove your point.

It doesn't disprove anything. It makes you an anomaly with a medical condition.  

[GilAskan]

DioRte

Just because you refuse to accept the fact that we share all the characteristics that define an animal as an animal doesn't mean we're not animals. You can not believe it all you want, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don' believe I'm a plant or a mineral, so I'm gonna go with animal.

Well we're clearly animals in a physiological sense. No one is saying that we're some supreme post-organism that's moved past physical needs.  

[DioRte]

Then I fail to see what this thread is about oO We're animals, so of course we have instincts and all that jazz. Just because we've got a great brain compared to most other animals doesn't mean we're anything special.  

[GilAskan]

DioRte

Then I fail to see what this thread is about oO We're animals, so of course we have instincts and all that jazz. Just because we've got a great brain compared to most other animals doesn't mean we're anything special.

The question of whether or not we're animals in a philosophical sense revolves around whether or not we've changed ourselves enough that we can consider ourselves seperate from them. As earlier stated in the thread, there are certain things humans do that NO other species on the planet do:

- We create art.
- We have written language.
- We use advanced tools.
- We create mechanisms (i.e. tools to operate other tools)
- We build fires.
- We cook our food.
- We intentionally cultivate plants.
- We make and wear clothes.
- We can (if we choose) willfully ignore the desire to sleep, eat, or have sex.
- We commit suicide.
- We travel for pleasure.

Among other things.

These traits are exhibited only by humans. The question of the thread being, "Are these traits enough to differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If our ability to perform these is taken away (i.e. no pen to write with) will we lose the ability to do them (i.e. no pen to write with -> illiteracy)? Is the ability to concieve these things what makes us human, or is the act of doing them what defines us?"  

[DioRte]

GilAskan

DioRte

Then I fail to see what this thread is about oO We're animals, so of course we have instincts and all that jazz. Just because we've got a great brain compared to most other animals doesn't mean we're anything special.

The question of whether or not we're animals in a philosophical sense revolves around whether or not we've changed ourselves enough that we can consider ourselves seperate from them. As earlier stated in the thread, there are certain things humans do that NO other species on the planet do:

- We create art.
- We have written language.
- We use advanced tools.
- We create mechanisms (i.e. tools to operate other tools)
- We build fires.
- We cook our food.
- We intentionally cultivate plants.
- We make and wear clothes.
- We can (if we choose) willfully ignore the desire to sleep, eat, or have sex.
- We commit suicide.
- We travel for pleasure.

Among other things.

These traits are exhibited only by humans. The question of the thread being, "Are these traits enough to differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If our ability to perform these is taken away (i.e. no pen to write with) will we lose the ability to do them (i.e. no pen to write with -> illiteracy)? Is the ability to concieve these things what makes us human, or is the act of doing them what defines us?"

Ants intentionally cultivate plants/algae. Apes use tools, just not power tools. I'd also like to say that hermit crabs and another species of crab decorate themselves, but you probably won't relate that to making/wearing clothing. All the rest is right, though. Of course if we lose the ability to perform them then we wouldn't be able to do them, that's a redundant sentence U_U; Philosophy was fun and all back in the old days, but it's no longer needed to the extent that it was before. We do need some creative thinking, but it's reserved for the much grander scale of space, not trying to further deify ourselves and separate us from the animal kingdom when we damn well meet every prerequisite for being in there, and we are in there. Humans trying to define themselves is comparable to an advanced computer with AI becoming self-aware. That doesn't change the fact that it's still just a computer, and we can sit here and ponder all day about everything that's essentially just a product of our brain, but it's never going to change the fact that we're animals. I think this is just silly, you're trying to argue that the things you do should be what defines you instead of what you're made up of. There are specific groups of chimpanzees that do things that most others don't, and they keep it going through their family by teaching it to their young. Are they animals because they're obviously progressing past their fellow animals? No, they're still animals, that isn't what makes them an animal. I did this thinking crap back in like middle school, it's feeble minded. This is the sort of thinking that lead people to think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.


[edit] Also, depending on what your religion allows you to believe, Neanderthals aren't humans, but they created art, so you can throw that into the fray, too.  

[zz1000zz]

Rellik San

Not necessarily, as that would be one piece of anecdotal evidence, the fact is, the will to survive is there and whilst you may not get hungry, the will to survive is why you eat.

The will to survive was not even in your initial post. I am disputing your claim that the strongest human urges are eating and procreating. I do not care if you want to define me as an animal or not, but your claim is simply false.

Sinister Kung Fu

It doesn't disprove anything. It makes you an anomaly with a medical condition.

He said all humans felt two urges above all else. I pointed out an example of someone who did not.

Call me an anomaly if you like, but his claim is still disproven.  

[DioRte]

She's right you know.  

[Rellik San]

DioRte

She's right you know.

On a technicality, I could prove every opinion of mine of a technicality.  

[DioRte]

Technicalities are what the best arguements are built on =]  

[Sinister Kung Fu]

DioRte

She's right you know.

No, she's sick. Just because a handful of people may behave differently as a result of a medical anomaly, or a mutation does not make the statement any less true. There are always going to be a certain number of exceptions to every rule. That does not invalidate the rule.  

[DioRte]

Sinister Kung Fu

DioRte

She's right you know.

No, she's sick. Just because a handful of people may behave differently as a result of a medical anomaly, or a mutation does not make the statement any less true. There are always going to be a certain number of exceptions to every rule. That does not invalidate the rule.

Actually, she's still right, regardless of the fact that she's sick as well. I never mentioned sickness, period.

Quote:

The will to survive was not even in your initial post. I am disputing your claim that the strongest human urges are eating and procreating. I do not care if you want to define me as an animal or not, but your claim is simply false.

Quote:

He said all humans felt two urges above all else. I pointed out an example of someone who did not.

Call me an anomaly if you like, but his claim is still disproven.

Those are that I'm talking about, she's technically right. It only takes one anomaly to disprove any sort of theory or hypothesis, she's it, she's right, period.  

[Sinister Kung Fu]

DioRte

Sinister Kung Fu

DioRte

She's right you know.

No, she's sick. Just because a handful of people may behave differently as a result of a medical anomaly, or a mutation does not make the statement any less true. There are always going to be a certain number of exceptions to every rule. That does not invalidate the rule.

Actually, she's still right, regardless of the fact that she's sick as well. I never mentioned sickness, period.

Quote:

The will to survive was not even in your initial post. I am disputing your claim that the strongest human urges are eating and procreating. I do not care if you want to define me as an animal or not, but your claim is simply false.

Quote:

He said all humans felt two urges above all else. I pointed out an example of someone who did not.

Call me an anomaly if you like, but his claim is still disproven.

Those are that I'm talking about, she's technically right. It only takes one anomaly to disprove any sort of theory or hypothesis, she's it, she's right, period.

For all you know, she could be lying just to try and prove it wrong.
Also, regardless of whether or not she actually feels hunger, it's still there, the need for food is still there, if she doesn't eat, she'd die just like the rest of us. Her medical anomaly disproves absolutely nothing.  

[DioRte]

For all you know, she's telling the truth. That's the point, you can't tell, you have to go by what you know, which is just what she said. It's not that she doesn't feel hunger or that it's not there as far as what she's trying to get across, that has nothing to do with it. The point she, and now I, was trying to get across is the statement that the strongest human urges are eating and procreating. Hunger, for her, is not the strongest urge for her, nor is it the second strongest, regardless of the fact that it's there. Technicalities, get used to them, they're what you need to pay attention to if you want to make a good arguement. It's also good for law.