Majin K.
too weak for this world
- Jan 9, 2020
- 232
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it's still far more logical to simply not believe in things which aren't proven.
I see what you are getting at and I largely agree with the sentiment (it's certainly true that deceitfulness is an exclusively human and rather unpleasant trait). However animals don't have a clue about right and wrong and thus can't act morally. Humans can (at least in principle) and there have been at least a few humans who were indeed saints (in the humanitarian, not the religious meaning of the word) so there are or at least were a few humans that can be considered 'better' than non-human animals.
You literally took the words out of my mouth! Please look at the 5th answer on the first page of this thread.
Great minds etc. :)
A little story about my sister's dog. It may be appropriate or maybe I'm just anthropomorphizing.
He's a working sprocker spaniel and I've never met a cleverer or more cunning animal. If you tell him off and he feels it's unjustified, he gets this look in his eye. It's defiance and cunning and naughtiness all rolled into one. Then he immediately disengages because he can tell you've seen the look.
Time passes and you hear him pottering around the house. You know he's looking for trouble. Eventually he finds some way to misbehave that he knows will provoke anger. It may be half an hour later or an hour but he's clearly been planning all the time. Then he does it and stands there wagging his tail with what I can only describe as a smug expression on his face.
He knows what he's done is wrong, that's why he did it. Sure, he doesn't have a grasp of what we call ethics, but then he kinda does, except it's limited to his narrower field of understanding. If you could only see the look on his face!
I think we should refer to him from now on as Dog. With a capital D. He sounds like the most perfect of all dogs. I am sure there's a painting on him in Plato's cave .
PS: This is me attempting to write a humorous reply to your earlier jokes. Your sister's dog seems just great and I am touched by how fond you are of him.
I love animals, all of the them, even bugs. If I accidentaly step on a small insect and I see my foot crushing it, unable to stop in good time, a pang of pain hits me.
Last edited:
So it would seem. I was working from home so I didn't have the time to read the whole thread. Don't know why I was visiting SS when I should have been working. My best guess is that work makes me suicidal...
Your remark about the innocence of animals reminds me of something similar Schopenhauer wrote. He was also quite fond of animals, poodles to be exact.
Since I stumbled upon SS, I try to work from home as little as possible, because when I do, this is what happens:
At my office: I work hard.
At home: I hardly work.
(I am not familiar with the details of Schopenhauer's life, but from what you wrote, he sounds like a plesant fella. I should investigate him closer.)
Same. I think avoiding inflicting suffering of any kind if possible is the right thing. People who see animals or even insects as "lesser" lives or as things etc are terrible to me. I think our true self is shown by how we treat those smaller, weaker, suffering more than us when we have a choice. Whenever you say that some jerk always tries to invalidate it saying something like "but you did this or that thing and killed bugs or bacteria or whatever" because people just love to say any good is not valid if it's not perfect...while they do nothing.
I also went to an expert today and got a definitive answer about all of this. I laid down next to my cat and asked her. She said "merp" and chewed on my hand a little. So that's settled.
I'd tell you his name but can't for the sake of anonymity
His hobby is chasing birds. He's caught everything you'd imagine. Pigeons grouse ducks even had a go at a Swan. A bloody Swan!
I haven'tseen him in months and I doubt I will again. My little mate.
I chase flies or even wasps around with a pint glass on the window to put them outside instead of killing them.
Last edited:
I'm pretty burned out when it comes to this job, luckily my contract ends mid July so in a few months I'll be free again. I do find I work harder at work yes as there is less distraction there. Doesn't really matter as my workload is insane and I can no longer manage it properly. Screw it, in the end we all die and once I'm dead none of this shit will matter anymore.
I do get along quite well with a few of my coworkers (the legal team mostly). I bet they won't be happy when I leave. They actually seem to think I enjoy being there... I must have gotten quite good at pretending (which for me comes with age as I used to be quite akward and asocial as a child and teenager).
During his lifetime Schopenhauer wasn't exactly known as a pleasant fellow as you put it: he was in fact, and fitting given the topic, a bona fide misantrophe. Still an extremely deep, honest, conscientious thinker, a magnificent writer and about the most renowned philosophical pessimist of all time.
It was him who convinced me there's good reason to doubt the optimistic spirit of the age with his message of the enduring suffering of mankind being the baseline and happiness as mainly sating wants and needs and thus in essence staving of misery. All we will ever achieve in this life is live fairly tolerably (keeping the horrors of sickness, loss, pain, poverty... at bay) and postpone death for aslong as possible. Which ironically is probably the best thing that could ever happen to us.
More and more I'm convinced of life's essential emptiness and illusionary nature. I believe I've come to a stage in my life where I should write down my thoughts (which I am in the process of doing as you're aware) and expose the truth about birth, life and death including voluntary death. After that I might just call it quits. After all: what is there to still do after that?
On a more practical level I was hoping to enjoy the immortal art in the musea of Florence (Italy obviously) but alas it seems the incompetence and scare-mongering of the Italian government (closing down public buildings in areas that are not known as outbreak areas) will make that impossible. This frustrates me greatly: I really had hoped to at least reap some benefit from this abject wage-slavery...
Last edited:
Cats! Where do I begin? To sing the praise of these divine creatures, I would probably need a whole month.
I had a cat, sadly not anymore. Her name was Cloetta (Cloetta is a brand of sweets in my country). She was orange and her soft belly had a lovely pattern of reddish-brown and white stripes.
Cloe was neither smart like some cats purportedly are, nor did she make me laugh or shower me with cuddles. And she definitely did not catch birds, like @Underscore 's genius Dog.
No. She just ate and slept and sometimes, during one of her rare good moods, she condescended to give me a miiiaaaauuu and acknowledge my presence.
But I loved her to death!
@Jean Améry
Florence is definitely worth the wait. I also have it on my to-do list before I pay Charon his coin.
Art can still move me, it can still stir something in me that is alive and aspiring towards light, in the dark abyss of my existence.
A few years ago, having forgotten my city map at the hotel, I was walking through the streets of Rome quite aimlessly, trying to decide where I should buy my first ever Italian gelato, and debating with myself whether pistaccio really was a good flavour.
As I was making my way along those intricate streets, most of them badly paved, I suddenly started to hear noise - voices, a bit of bustle, signs of life cramed together. At that time I was, by my calculations, moving away from the Tiber in the direction of the Colloseum.
Curious as to where the voices where coming from, I took a few more steps on a narrow, oddly shaped street, and turned right. And as I looked up across this square that had been occulted by the houses, but now spread before my eyes, I suddenly found the source of the noise and caugth a view of the Pantheon.
Now, I am not one to swoon over buildings. Poetry, yes. But brick and mortar is not likely to inflame my soul.
This building though... I swear to you, I felt annihilated by it.
Surrounded as it stood on all sides by other houses, with a myriad of tourist gathered around it, it looked like a Titan collapsed from the heavens right down in the middle of the square.
It was breathtaking, glorious, godly.
It was right then and there that I finally understood why all of our Western world is anchored in the Ancient Roman and Greek culture, why all the roads lead to Rome, and why all architecture and art has its cradle in Italy.
Before this bloody gladiator fight that is life ends, I want to feel crushed by beauty like that again.
"Beauty is terror that we can barely withstand".
I had to get lost on the streets of Rome in order to find the meaning of Rilke's words.
Last edited:
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
In the past several months, I read a book by Frans de Waal, a primatologist who observed primates have a sense of fairness. In one example, two primates performed the same task, one was rewarded with grapes, the other with a less desirable food. After repeatedly noticing the imbalance, the offended primate flung away the lesser reward and afterward refused to accept anything but grapes for the task.
Primates have social systems similar to humans. Two males fight, a female grooms one, then the other, going back and forth until she steps out and the huffing males, now adequately calmed down, start begrudgingly grooming one another.
As @Reallyreallyreally observed, dogs in packs have very similar behaviors to humans. I've certainly noticed this in bars. Dogs even hide bones from one another -- tell me that ain't deception.
So much of evolutionary nature is based on deception -- bugs that look like sticks, fish with dangling lures in front of their mouths, reptiles and octopi that change appearance to blend with their environments.
I don't think it's anthropomorphizing to accuse animals of deception, I think instead viewing humans as deceptive is appropriately animalizing us.
As far as reincarnation and asking to be born, the Buddhist belief, which has roots in Jainism and Brahmanism (though I don't know those systems of belief, only that Buddhism was not wholly original thought), is that we do not necessarily seek rebirth, but rather that while we are in the cycle of suffering called samsara, we are ignorant and attached to pleasure, and avoid pain as an expression of attachment to pleasure. Gautama Buddha (and perhaps his predecessors of other faiths?) believed that, while in samsara, if we are to be reborn in the earthly realm, after we die we are attracted to one in a copulating couple and jump on in there at conception. Because of past karmic actions, we end up in a correlating realm -- heaven, hell, earth, animal, hungry ghost, formless, neither form not formless, etc. -- and karma also dictates the quality of our experience in that realm. Once free of ignorance and attachment, we bypass certain realms and conditions and, it is hoped, any kind of rebirth at all, at last free of samsara. Such a state is likened to a flame -- no one knows where it goes once it is gone, it is conditionless.
Primates have social systems similar to humans. Two males fight, a female grooms one, then the other, going back and forth until she steps out and the huffing males, now adequately calmed down, start begrudgingly grooming one another.
As @Reallyreallyreally observed, dogs in packs have very similar behaviors to humans. I've certainly noticed this in bars.
Dogs even hide bones from one another -- tell me that ain't deception.So much of evolutionary nature is based on deception -- bugs that look like sticks, fish with dangling lures in front of their mouths, reptiles and octopi that change appearance to blend with their environments.
I don't think it's anthropomorphizing to accuse animals of deception, I think instead viewing humans as deceptive is appropriately animalizing us.
As far as reincarnation and asking to be born, the Buddhist belief, which has roots in Jainism and Brahmanism (though I don't know those systems of belief, only that Buddhism was not wholly original thought), is that we do not necessarily seek rebirth, but rather that while we are in the cycle of suffering called samsara, we are ignorant and attached to pleasure, and avoid pain as an expression of attachment to pleasure. Gautama Buddha (and perhaps his predecessors of other faiths?) believed that, while in samsara, if we are to be reborn in the earthly realm, after we die we are attracted to one in a copulating couple and jump on in there at conception. Because of past karmic actions, we end up in a correlating realm -- heaven, hell, earth, animal, hungry ghost, formless, neither form not formless, etc. -- and karma also dictates the quality of our experience in that realm. Once free of ignorance and attachment, we bypass certain realms and conditions and, it is hoped, any kind of rebirth at all, at last free of samsara. Such a state is likened to a flame -- no one knows where it goes once it is gone, it is conditionless.
Last edited:
@GoodPersonEffed
You make quite a convincing case and you word it so eloquently that you make me forget my arguments :-)
I think there's a distinction between animals' adaptive behaviours and their conditioned responses to external stimuli, and a human's deceitfulness.
In animals "deceit" is not gratuituous, it serves an evolutionary or survival purpose.
The snake that changes the color of its skin depending on the foliage it is in, does so to hunt or avoid being hunted.
The dog that refuses the less appealing treat, does so because the appetite for tasty food is wired into his dna.
The researcher drew the conclusion that the dog's behaviour was based on it having a sense of fairness, but from a scientific point of view, the researcher has not proven that.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is that humans are capable of, and often engage in, deceit for the sake of deceit, whereas animals use deceit for survival and to gain something, such as a tasty treat.
Going back to your previous post, which contained such a wonderful overview or the terms misanthrope and humanism (thank you for that!), I would like to add one thing:
Hatred must have an object of hate. I think it's safe to say we don't hate things which we love, like, admire, in other words, things that evince qualities which have a positive effect on us.
Since a misanthrope hates humans, it must therefore mean that humans do not posess such qualities as to make themselves worthy of love. Quite the contrary: they display such attributes which trigger dislike and hate.
If there is nothing to hate in humans, the misanthrope's hate is objectless and therefore does not exist. One cannot hate something which does not exist.
You make quite a convincing case and you word it so eloquently that you make me forget my arguments :-)
I think there's a distinction between animals' adaptive behaviours and their conditioned responses to external stimuli, and a human's deceitfulness.
In animals "deceit" is not gratuituous, it serves an evolutionary or survival purpose.
The snake that changes the color of its skin depending on the foliage it is in, does so to hunt or avoid being hunted.
The dog that refuses the less appealing treat, does so because the appetite for tasty food is wired into his dna.
The researcher drew the conclusion that the dog's behaviour was based on it having a sense of fairness, but from a scientific point of view, the researcher has not proven that.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is that humans are capable of, and often engage in, deceit for the sake of deceit, whereas animals use deceit for survival and to gain something, such as a tasty treat.
Going back to your previous post, which contained such a wonderful overview or the terms misanthrope and humanism (thank you for that!), I would like to add one thing:
Hatred must have an object of hate. I think it's safe to say we don't hate things which we love, like, admire, in other words, things that evince qualities which have a positive effect on us.
Since a misanthrope hates humans, it must therefore mean that humans do not posess such qualities as to make themselves worthy of love. Quite the contrary: they display such attributes which trigger dislike and hate.
If there is nothing to hate in humans, the misanthrope's hate is objectless and therefore does not exist. One cannot hate something which does not exist.
I never said animals cannot deceive. I said they aren't being unethical and knowing they are wrong and feeling guilt etc It's all feeling and instinct, pattern and reward etc. Doesn't make them stupid or robots. Just means they don't have the sort of abstract awareness humans do...and thus hold responsibility for their behavior. Also primates are blurring the line really and not at all the same as dogs or cats even if some behaviors are shared. I am positive my cat isn't thinking about ways to get an extra treat but also feeling guilty for doing it knowing it costs me more for example. She just has the drive for the food. Humans KNOW better on a higher level.
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
@Epsilon0, I am loving this discussion. Thank you for starting it.
In the above quote, I did a bit of rearranging and numbering for ease in communicating.
1. I would argue that deceit is an adaptive evolutionary trait. Some humans deceive for self- or group-protection, while some do it because it is personally rewarding and tastes mighty good to them. I suspect it is an expression of dominance, and on this planet, humans have evolved to become the dominant species.
In The Laws of Emotion, it is posited that the majority of primary emotions exist to prepare us for next actions. When we desire something, and that desire is sated, we seek new stimulation and new desires to satisfy, continually propellng us to next actions, which stimulate growth and advancement. One can get tired of their very favorite food if they have it every day. One can get bored in a rewarding long-term relationship and seek a new one if they don't make a conscious effort to focus on why the relationship is rewarding so that they remain satisfied, if not as stimulated as in the early stages.
The five precepts of Buddhism, the precepts of similar systems of belief, the judeo-christian 10 commandments, and the golden rule of multiple worldwide faiths and schools of philosophy exist to help us get along and be safe for one another. And yet they are difficult to maintain because they inhibit personal and group advancement, which is often achieved at the expense of others (including the deceptions of stealing and lying). Animals steal for survival and reward, such as birds of prey and racoons.
All of this I've written here in this comment leads me to tentatively accept a hypothesis that deception is an adaptive trait that reinforces humans are advanced animals. We're just better at and more conscious of deception because evolution found it a quite useful adaptive trait that works well with and is also recognized by our advanced consciousness.
2. de Waal acknowledges your assertion that he has not proven fairness in animal cognition. It has been argued against academically, and he admits it is a working hypothesis or theory as yet neither definitively proven nor disproven. There are other researchers delving into theories of animal ethics, de Waal is the only one I've personally read, but a Google search of the the term animal ethics shows this is an established field of study. If that had been the point of the original post, I would have delved into it rather than misanthropy and humanism. :) Honestly, I'm just enjoying the intellectual stimulation here; I already had applicable knowledge for some of the ideas raised in this thread, for others I had to go digging. I've thoroughly enjoyed all of it.
3. On reflection, what seems to me to be lacking in the misanthrope is whatever makes us social animals. We are hard-wired to need interpersonal connection, touch, inclusion, acceptance, and reciprocity. Some level of acceptance and forgiveness is required or both the smallest and the largest social groups would fall apart.
Hatred is rejection, and the misanthrope rejects humanity and other humans, yet is not necessarily a hermit removed from society, but often still participating in society, even as s/he rejects and renounces it and/or its members. I wonder, what's up with that?
I get a sense that you're perhaps seeking something admirable and/or morally/ethically justifiable or valuable in the misanthrope, am I misperceiving? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I sense that there is a desire to embrace or defend, and am curious about the motivation.
If the misanthrope is perhaps not a humanist, and has found nothing worthy of motivating a desire for others of his/her own kind, such as love or another complex or even primary emotion, then based on this thread's discussion, which includes deceptiveness, I wonder if misanthropy is also an adaptive trait, and if so, to what benefit? Could it be an evolutionary experiment to see if a new species advancing from homo sapiens would be better equipped to survive and thrive without social support and inclusion? Would they be hetero sapiens?
Also, no trait is ever completely discarded, because it may be useful later. Whale fins have the remnants of leg bones. Some humans have little holes outside their ears from the former trait of gills. Could it be that the misanthropic hate of humanity is vestigial and at some point in the distant past served a necessary purpose for an ancestral species?
And what the heck did the appendix once do?
Last edited:
I agree with you!
@GoodPersonEffed
I would argue that deceit is an adaptive evolutionary trait.
You make such an interesting point! I am very much inclined to abandon my position. I am willing to bet evolutionary biologists have some theories about dishonest behaviours in animals. This is one of those questions I would like to ask Richard Dawkins on one of his Q & A panels.
I get a sense that you're perhaps seeking something admirable and/or morally/ethically justifiable or valuable in the misanthrope, am I misperceiving? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I sense that there is a desire to embrace or defend, and am curious about the motivation.
You are absolutely right and you blow me away with your reading and interpretation skills. In all honesty, I never spent a moment contemplating misanthropy until I came to SS. The explanation for why I am so fascinated by this topic is almost foolish in its simplicity: I am losing faith in humanity, and feeling more and more at home in nihilism and pessimism. Which begs the question: does that mean I am also turning into a misanthrope? Misanthropy has such negative connotations, that I felt compelled to engage in its "defence" (for lack of a better word).
What about you, Good? What is your level of misanthropy?
Last edited:
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
I am disheartened by humanity, or perhaps a better word is dis-soulened; it is at times utterly spirit-crushing and self-crushing. I do not hate humanity nor hold it in the utter contempt of a misanthrope. I'm simply out of hope that a greater good can or will prevail. I am sad for those who strive for the good and lose, I am happy for those who strive and have victories, however long they last, and I am sad for those who strive for domination, deception, and destruction.
Horace Walpole, a man of privilege, said that life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think. To me it is a tragicomedy. I can laugh at how much like little children we are, what utter animals we are in spite of our elevated cognitive abilities; and yet, in utilizing my thinking skills, I also see the tragedy that, from the lowest to the highest, most life forms must consume other life forms in order to survive.
I experience reviving and vitalizing moments, but the big pictures of life and humanity have ultimately left me worn out and defeated. Pessimism and nihilism are around me and touch me, but they do not lead me to hate. I am far more influenced by the Stoic and Buddhist stance of acceptance. Enlightenment has not led to bliss, rather a recognition of my own powerlessness, and the cost to my soul if I were to fight against and simultaneously pursue power in this world. My greatest hope now is for there to be no rebirth, especially not in this hell-animal-hungry ghost realm called Earth. Too many tyrants run and ruin the party of life, and for me the wise choice is to withdraw in order to preserve my virtue and character, lest the things I am powerless to change diminish or destroy them. The worst part of the withdrawal is passing through the dying, or I'd already be on my way. But on the way out, I won't lift a misanthropic middle finger, or misanthropically turn away in gestureless disdain. I will try to leave as Seneca advised: virtuously, sensibly, and courageously.
Horace Walpole, a man of privilege, said that life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think. To me it is a tragicomedy. I can laugh at how much like little children we are, what utter animals we are in spite of our elevated cognitive abilities; and yet, in utilizing my thinking skills, I also see the tragedy that, from the lowest to the highest, most life forms must consume other life forms in order to survive.
I experience reviving and vitalizing moments, but the big pictures of life and humanity have ultimately left me worn out and defeated. Pessimism and nihilism are around me and touch me, but they do not lead me to hate. I am far more influenced by the Stoic and Buddhist stance of acceptance. Enlightenment has not led to bliss, rather a recognition of my own powerlessness, and the cost to my soul if I were to fight against and simultaneously pursue power in this world. My greatest hope now is for there to be no rebirth, especially not in this hell-animal-hungry ghost realm called Earth. Too many tyrants run and ruin the party of life, and for me the wise choice is to withdraw in order to preserve my virtue and character, lest the things I am powerless to change diminish or destroy them. The worst part of the withdrawal is passing through the dying, or I'd already be on my way. But on the way out, I won't lift a misanthropic middle finger, or misanthropically turn away in gestureless disdain. I will try to leave as Seneca advised: virtuously, sensibly, and courageously.
A good answer is like a kiss on the lips, says King Solomon in the Old Testament.
A kiss on the lips, meaning a sign of respect and equality.
You wrote a very good answer @GoodPersonEffed
A kiss on the lips, meaning a sign of respect and equality.
You wrote a very good answer @GoodPersonEffed
Last edited:
Arrrgggg you guys stop posting such interesting things please I want to post but I'm on my phone and I need the pc to think and do it justice. My memory is awful I bet I forget I want to respond to all these posts tomorrow.
Soul-crushing is a phrase I use all the time. I also don't think most mistanthrope HATE humanity...rather we are saddned/disappointed and all the words you used. It's wrong and unfair and unnecessary. But it is what is...
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
If you promise to solve the mystery of the appendix, I will remind you tomorrow.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Misanthrops recognize humanity's faults and are disappointed.
No faults = no disappointment = no misanthropy
He's brilliant. Seriously though, I'm parking all this for tomorrow when I can reply without using my thumbs.
Challenge accepted. Well I'll try at least. If I remember.
Well as far as I can tell the appendix used to be thought to be redundant. It was often removed in routine abdominal surgery to prevent any future appendicitis. Might as well remove it whilst you are in there eh?
Now the theory is that the appendix actually plays an important role in the immune system of the fetus and young adults, producing various homeostatic hormones. So it has an immune function and is also thought to be involved in producing certain antibodies and directing lymphocytes to where they need to go. It's also thought to produce probiotics in the gut and help sustain the gut biome.
Your Appendix Could Save Your Life
The humble organ may help us recover from serious infections
I believe this to be true. Look at Dog.
This is a good way of flipping it. I've not thought about this. Are there any other studies that demonstrate fairness or even altruism in other animals?
Everything is an adaptive trait. Everything. Or it wouldn't exist. It might not work out in the long run or be abandoned because it's not needed, but it's all throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. Evolution is not about getting better, as some might see it, it's about survival. Often, survival does mean improvement, but only in so much as to adapt to the environment.
Yes. I think the appendix may not be one of these things from what I've read today. More obvious would be the vestigial legs on legless lizards.
Altruism fascinates me. I think altruism may to a large extent have a function in social evolution. I've seen it in ethnographic studies when I studied anthropology. Being nice to people is good for the individual and creates solidarity and emotional debt that can then be called on at a later date. It's a subtle form of manipulation and it's how social groups work.
That benign manipulation is everywhere; it's actually necessary for any society, even animals to function. In this way it is neither good or bad, but necessary. But of course each individual puts their own slant on it based on their good or bad experiences. And people can act without awareness of their true motivations.
This doesn't detract from any act of kindness in any way whatsoever, rather it embeds it in human biology as an adaptive trait often necessary for the survival of complex societies.
Last edited:
@GoodPersonEffed
@Underscore
In his book The selfish gene Richard Dawkings talks precisely about selfishness and altruism from the point of view of evolutionary biology. He explains that genes "use" altruism as a means to attain selfish aims, the most selfish aim of them all being, of course, reproduction.
A short introduction by the man himself. Listen to the voice of reason :-)
@Underscore
In his book The selfish gene Richard Dawkings talks precisely about selfishness and altruism from the point of view of evolutionary biology. He explains that genes "use" altruism as a means to attain selfish aims, the most selfish aim of them all being, of course, reproduction.
A short introduction by the man himself. Listen to the voice of reason :-)
This it where it gets deeper. To seek to embrace a disillusionment of human nature. Well it's not just human nature. We are a sub-set of a greater whole and we are subject to all the 'laws' of nature, not set apart from it. Good or bad; ethics, are human constructs that attempt to set us beyond the very thing that acts as our foundation, those rules of nature that sit behind evolution and the rules of physics that sit behind nature.
Are we really trying to kick the chair out from under ourselves? Er... isn't that actually...cultural suicide?
Or is it an attempt to become something that we regard as better? Is there a difference?
It's interesting though. Some religions do exactly this. They set humanity up as special and separate from nature. The concept of a soul which lesser animals don't have. A divine right based on choice and the understanding of good and evil. Some philosophies will also argue that we are on a spiritual path of evolution, where our choice of positive or negative actions and thoughts impact our karma. None of this is a bad thing; rather an attempt to resolve a paradox (see below).
So maybe the function of altruism as a social mechanism is to attempt to evolve beyond our individualising lives into a more supportive and understanding society, in an effort to survive in a new environment.
This isn't all 'kumbya' stuff either. We are arguably currently in the midst of a large extinction episode, where the face of life on earth is changing. This is a normal and natural event. This individualising cultural mechanism can be seen throughout history and prehistory and is the subject of another topic entirely (one which I've spent much of my career studying, both academically and in what I've dug up; it was the subject of my dissertation).
An altruistic cultural norm may be the antithesis of the individualising societies that bring us into gradual extinction. The recognition of the need to not always do things just because we can, to chose to not advance, for the sake of society as a whole rather than for the sake of an individual or group.
This is the crux to me: it's a paradox. We are governed by nature and thus these things that we may see as repugnant. Selfish genes. One of these may actually be altruism that on the face of it attempts to go beyond our programming, whilst being a function of the very same programming it's attempting to go beyond.
I suspect that any species intelligent to manipulate it's environment sets off a ticking time bomb of cultural evolution that will ultimately resolve that paradox in an 'extinction' event. This is the Toolmaker Paradox.
See, I'm not writing all that crap on my phone.
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
I don't know. I do know that many different types of animals have adopted orphans of other species. And dolphins in the wild have been known to rescue drowning humans. (An interesting side note relevant to the discussion of whether animals knowingly practice deception, but also potentially triggering, dolphins are also the only other species known to commit rape.)
The question also reminded me of this video of a bear at a zoo rescuing a drowning crow. I maintain a healthy skepticism about it though, it could as easily have been staged as real.
They have, that's true.
Yes, I remember those stories now. IIRC there was even one where some guy nosedived of the Golden gate Bridge and was rescued from drowning by a dolphin! I don't know if it's true though. I shudda remembered that. Very bad memory here/lack of sleep so long.
That crow thing is excellent if it's real.
Interesting. Where would be the advantage of cross species altruism? Maybe it's just hard wired into living things to an even more fundamental level. Or maybe it was just a really nice bear.
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
From an opposite perspective, I've read that a fear of snakes is hardwired into humans from our primate ancestors.
So perhaps intraspecies altruism is an ancient recognition of one species being beneficial to the survival and thriving of another, much like it was of benefit for dogs to become domesticated.
TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,861
This is a good post and make sense from that point of view. From there, perhaps a misanthrope who sees humanity as a whole to be negative, might be able to help humanity improve thus (in the long term) make humanity less crappy perhaps? If that assumption is true, then perhaps misanthropy eventually leads to improvement of the human race as a whole.
GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
I was thinking today about three similar words:
Misogyny
Misandry
Misanthropy
The first two are attitudes revealed by words and actions. There is contempt, derision, dismissal, devaluation, denial, hatred, and disrespect aimed at another gender, based on a belief that one gender is right and the other is wholly or almost wholly wrong and of no moral but perhaps some practical value. While one may still interact with the other gender out of necessity (such as social contact at work or with family members) or personal wants or needs (such as sexual contact, reproduction, and child rearing), the other gender is viewed with contempt and disrespect, as unworthy of consideration, respect, or equal treatment, as utterly hopeless, and as incapable of reaching bars raised by the belief systems or personal beliefs of the misogynist/misandrist. Such views lead to excusing abusive and exclusionary behaviors toward members of the opposite gender. I would tentatively hypothesize that such stances are arrived at through personal negative experiences and/or exposure to social systems of belief, whether familial, religious, cultural, etc.
In this line of reasoning, the misanthrope feels the same ways listed at the beginning of the above paragraph about other humans and humanity. The stance is revealed by words and actions. The misanthrope may continue to engage out of necessity or want, but in a narcissistic, self-serving way, rather than reciprocal or mutually-serving. One's experiences and influences can lead to becoming a misanthrope and seeing humans as wholly or almost wholly wrong, of limited value, and unworthy of respect, consideration, or equal treatment. Such views lead to excusing abusive and exclusionary treatment of other humans.
Based on your consistent behaviors on SS in general and with me personally, I do not judge your character as being in any kind of danger of becoming misanthropic.
But I don't live inside you and what I think only has value for me in determining if you are a safe and desirable person for me to interact with.
It's far more important to ask yourself, What do you think? Have I made a strong case for what misanthropy is, and is that what you are heading toward? Do you have desire for or repulsion to it? Do you have agency in whether or not you want to or actually become one? And is it a temporary, understandable and forgivable state you experience as well as other any other temporary and understandable state?
Similar threads
- noname223
- Suicide Discussion
Suicide Discussion
glassbottom
- samsara_96
- Suicide Discussion
Suicide Discussion
samsara_96
