Darwinism or bust

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This thread is not about the in and out of Darwinism/evolution,
per se, but it is about the implications of said science…

It has been said, quite often actually, that human beings
are decedents of apes… and thus, more importantly, we are
animals… and this comes back to rather common complaints
about human beings… the ‘‘boys will be boys’’ arguments
that deny boys taking responsibility for actions taken…
I have heard after a group of boys raped a girl, oh, ‘‘boys will
be boys’’ as a defense for their raping a girl… and this ties into
the humans are animals’ argument… those boys are animals
and thus, were unable to prevent themselves from raping others…
they were operating on pure instincts, not rationality and thus, they
were not in control of their own actions… ‘‘boys will be boys’’
is simply said, that boys are animals, nothing more and why should
we punish animals for doing animal things, when they can’t help it?

But this argument lacks the key idea that we are not just animals,
we are human beings… and what does that entail? To be human
means what? and our failure to understand what being human actually
means or are we, as often said, simply animals? And our answer
shines a light on our past, present and future…

if we can be human, why do we insist on holding onto our
animal past? To state one is animal, means we reject our
possibilities of being human…Compare human beings with
animals and we instantly see that we are, in vast number of ways,
having choices and possibilities that animals can never have…
animals can only act within their instincts, whereas as I
am human, I have choices and possibilities that, because
of the animal dependence on instincts, animals don’t have those
choices and possibilities… a animals can only be an animal,
nothing more, nothing less… their instincts prevent them
from being anything else… but those instincts, we humans
have them, the fight or flight response is one such instinct…
but being human also means I can overcome my instincts,
something animals are unable to do… they cannot become something
else whereas human beings can become something else…

We are born of animals, but does that mean we should remain
animal all of our existence? That seems to be a pitiful response
to all of the human possibilities that are available to us…
no animal can become human, which means they cannot
do math or learn another language, travel to different countries
just to see what is there… or to climb mountains just because…
or as I have done, studied philosophy for almost 50 years…
it is simply not possible for an animal to do these things… but we can
which simply means we are both animal, we must engage in our animal
nature, of having needs like food, water, shelter, health care and education…
but it is on the psychological side that really separates animals from
human beings…on the psychological side of being human lies needing
love, having esteem, having safety/security, and the feeling of
belonging… failure to have any of these things psychologically
in human beings means those human beings are damaged goods…
and we met those people every single day walking the streets…

To be animal means we are stuck on instincts, we have no
other choices but to follow our instincts, but to be human,
to be human means we can and often do rise above our instincts,
we, both psychologically and bodily need love and yet,
unlike animals, we can walk away from love… we can obey
our instincts but we can also walk away from them, we can
even reject those human traits like love and self-esteem
and even basics like food and water… that is part of being human,
we can reject basic needs, and this is something that animals cannot
do…to be human means to have choices, which animals do not have…

So, given we are human and thus we can, if we so desire to,
we can reject our instincts, which is really nothing more
than an operating system build…

and if we are not animal, as the above suggests, then what
exactly are we if we are not animal?
For to be human requires us to have choices and possibilities…
and if one has choices, then one also has to be responsible to
try to make the ‘‘right choice’’… and what is the ‘‘right choice?’’
which is another point for being human is that animals, because
of instincts, don’t ever wonder what is the ‘‘right choice’’, but we
humans, we have that possibility to make the ‘‘right choice’’
we can ask, unlike animals, does this action improve or lessens
our own human society/state…

and therein lies our point… that animals have no choice
in their actions because of instincts, and we human beings,
we have choices and possibilities… so why would anyone choose
to be animal, ''boys will be boys?" and what does this say about
us going into the future…

Nietzsche said that we humans, we are moving from
animal to becoming human… and this means we move
away from instincts, and including in our instincts lies
hate, anger, lust, fear, but also prejudices and bigotry…
to be totally human, to end that journey of becoming,
we must move away from our indoctrinations and instincts…
the closer we get to removing our indoctrinations, instincts,
prejudices, the closer we come to becoming human…
moving away from animal, as an operating system
and becoming human, that is the goal, both individually
and collectively… and being human, that means we
have choices and possibilities… something animals do
not have… does this action increase our choices and possibilities,
that is what it means to be human… increasing our choices and
possibilities… removing choices and possibilities, that means
moving closer to animal…

Kropotkin

2

Yes, boys will be boys has been heartily abused and excused many inexcusable acts. Though I have to say I don’t hear that much at all these days. Yes, humans have options that other animals do not have. But it is not true that animals can’t go against their instincts. There are obvious examples of animals that have long contact with humans that do this - the domesticated mammals, for example, but even animals from other groups. But even in the wild they can go against their instincts.

Humpback whales are terrified of orcas, yet some overcome the flight instinct and intervene and protect the prey of orcas, including ocean mammals FROM OTHER SPECIES.

Social mammals often suppress instincts for social reasons, just as we do. Meerkat sentries sounding the alarm even though this makes it vasly more likely the predator will find them. Dolphins or lions adopting animals of different species.

Now one could argue that these are instincts overriding instincts, but the same argument can be made with humans. And there is no evolutionary benefit to aiding animals from other species, unless it’s a symbiotic thing like badgers and coyotes hunting together. But the the adoptions examples of humpback whales risking their lives for utterly unrelated creatures is risk with no genetic benefit. The causation is going a different way there.

Human beings share a common ancestor with apes.

Or we could say we are that animals that have

specific traits other animals do not have.

Social mammals need all of those things. And when they don’t get them, just like humans they get serious problems.

At what stage in evolution did determinism no longer hold sway over humans or prehumans?

hate anger lust and fear all serve purposes. Yes, one can have problems with these emotions, but a parent that did not feel fear or anger in certain situations involved their children would be diminished parents. For example. Lies also can serve good purposes. Or we could, like Kant would admonish us, tell the Nazis when asked by them where the Jews are.

Yes, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche famously wrote, “Man is a rope, tied between beast and Overman—a rope over an abyss.” He saw humanity as a bridge, but the destination (Übermensch) is not a domesticated, moral creature who has purged their animal drives. That is a complete and utter misread of N.

Further, Nietzsche detested democratic idealism, utilitarianism, and universal moralizing. The claim that being human means finding a collective operating system to make the right choices for society is a perfect example of slave morality—the exact herd-mentality Nietzsche spent his career dissecting.

I’m not a Nietszchian, but this is a misrepresentation of N who wanted people to accept an animal vitality.

“To exterminate the passions and desires, merely in order to obviate their stupidity and its unpleasant consequences, appears to us today merely as an extreme form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who pluck out teeth so that they will not hurt any more.” — Twilight of the Idols (“Morality as Anti-Nature”, §1)

“Lust: to all hair-shirted despisers of the body, their thorn and stake… Lust: the great roof-garden delight for earthly hearts, the overflowing wine of wines…” — Thus Spoke Zarathustra (“On the Three Evils”)

“All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward—this is what I call the internalization of man… Those terrible bulwarks with which the state protected itself against the old instincts of freedom… brought about that all those instincts of wild, free, prowling man turned backward against man himself.” — On the Genealogy of Morals (Second Essay, §16)

We seem not to be animals in PK’s estimation (based on what I don’t know) but computer-like. Becoming human is for some reason equated with improving our operating systems. Becoming great computers. Both the parts of me that are like other animals and the parts of me that seem specific to humans find that distasteful, though that’s perhaps a topic for another thread. And the hatred of the limbic system is very common and not well thought out, here or elsewhere.

3

@greenfuse
@Peter_Kropotkin

Civilization if you can keep it civilized otherwise it falls into primitive animalistic barbarism very quickly within reckless abandonment.

Cooperation versus competition.

Morality and ethics versus raw power or domination.

:clown_face:

4

Man, you guys gotta hang out with more animals. We are pisspoor, percentagewise, compared to elephants and most pack/herd/pod animals when it comes to cooperation.

1 Like
5

@greenfuse

I have a lot of animals on my desert ranch between my wife and me. I agree.

Human beings are severely problematic between cooperation, competition, and dominating over each other. It is our greatest weakness as a species.

:clown_face:

6

We are apes. If we had a tail we would be monkeys. We share a common ancestor with every living thing, the most recent being chimpanzees.

ps. There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’. Is relativitiy ‘Einsteinism’?

7

Good for you guys. I am not around animals right now which sucks.

1 Like
8

@greenfuse

I can sell you some rabbits, we have too damn many.

:clown_face:

1 Like
9

Humans are animals. Full stop.

The difference between human beings and all of the other animals is that human beings can learn, understand, and reason about any and every thing. No other animal can do this.

1 Like
10

@anew1

We have the potential to improve learning, creating, and understanding but in many cases we’re quite poor at it.

:clown_face:

11

I agree.

Although human beings are the most intelligent animals on earth, they can also be the most stupid. No other animal pollutes the things they need beyond the livable means, commits atrocities, kills others for nothing more than their beliefs, nor punishes and imprisons their own kind like human beings do.

1 Like