Hello,
Here is something I, a philosophy newbie, am wondering over:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
Most, if not all other animals, run on pure instinct, whereas we run on instinct plus the seven deadly sins.
Were these features of man there in prehuman times or did they show up posthuman?
Are they responsible for our mental evolution, or are they a luxury of survival?
Um, my dog exhibits all of those from time to time- except maybe Pride.
Dogs are pets, and don’t worry too much about survival.
This reminds me of a story I heard recently, about the late Bruno Visco, a Unitarian minister who I knew for several years. I remember him fondly. My sister was the organist at his curch, and I attended sometimes, and also often played the flute at services.
He was at a yard sale, or other similar event, and met a couple of catholic nuns there. They asked him what Unitarians believe in. He answered, “You know those things you call sins?” They nodded. Then he said, “We think they’re fun.”
Duder, I think we do not all “run on” the seven deadly sins. Not as sins, anyway. I happen to enjoy lust, gluttony and sloth. I’m all for pride, as well. I can’t really object too much to wrath, either. Greed and envy are not really attributes I admire, but that also depends on the definition one uses. My guess is that sin is the invention of religion. They are then the luxury of survival, if I understand you.
I am here only trying to point out that the context of your question is a religious one. Their exact origin is unknown to me, however.
Best wishes,
f
I appologize for the misunderstanding. This was not meant to be a religious topic. My emphasis wasn’t on that sin part, but on those traits of man, which happen to have a label to them.
I was wondering when we acquired those traits, and if they were what made us evolve mentally as opposed to physically, or if they were traits that we developed as surving got easier and easier. (What Uccisore said about his dog is a good example, since the dog’s survival is guaranteed)
Duder,
The “seven deadly sins” are the ecumenical byproduct of early Christian theologians. When I say early, I mean like post-Apostolic white bearded smart guys that talked about God and fought Manicheism.
This is the framework. Now let’s discuss.
First of all, I think you’re a little by the wayside with your definition. Lust, gluttony, greed, etc, aren’tcalled deadly sins in formal dogma, but they tend to go by the name of capital sins. They are the most numerous are found in most people. Next in line are sins that call upon them the wrath of God, like homicide and stuff. The truly deadly sins are those that insult the Holy Spirit, like apostasy, heresy and stuff.
Regarding the intrinsic nature of the seven capital sins: they are the innate calling of the flesh, natural and omnipresent. It is a scientifically proved fact that all people do, they do out of need for feedback and recompensation. People are greedy bastards. There’s no doubt there, that’s just what people do.
Regarding the classification of sins - I tend to be wary of such, I may say arbitrary, quantifications and evaluations of sins. Sins are strictly tied with the concept of “penitence” and also depend on situational contexts. One could also invoke the continuous tension between sin and law.
Sins, transgression, they stand out, they blurt out and spread chaos. They beg laws, norms, order instead of chaos. I’m not against legal order; but then again, I’m the one that thinks Kant is cool. The law was instituted precisely because of those who went astray, and God expects us that we obey it. Especially the God of Moses, you know, the Old Testament one. In a modern context, I’d say that the perfect Jew is not unlike the kantian moral man - filling a pre-given form with the substance of his being, obeying the imperative of God’s will, a bollard in all matters of right and wrong.
Paul, however, is smarter. I like Paul as a philosopher, because he takes the most out of his Christic revelation and manages to liven up the scene and differentiate Law (with a capital L, as in God’s Law), and faith. In Galatians, ch 3, he does precisely that: “the law is not of faith”. Law is for rigid, law imposes barriers, which none of us can confine in. We’re not only sinners by acts, we’re sinners by nature. We do it all the time, there’s no way out, the Law is like a grip vice. So Paul somehow puts the content of one’s moral maxims over the form which they follow and fusions the concept of righteousness with that of conviction: “The just shall live by faith.” Faith, in his case, is the catalyst that mediates transgression from the obtusity of Law to the plenitude of divine grace.
faust,
Lol, if that’s true, then you’re name is more of a quirky irony, is it ?
Once again I apologize for the misunderstanding. 
I would like to get your thoughts on what I was trying to say, though.
Mucius - hmmmm. I’m not sure if that’s what my parents had in mind when they named me. I’ll have to ask. I think my mother believes in sin. To me, it is fiction.
By the way, is there a difference between a sin and a vice? I don’t know where to go to find this out. And it’s been bugging me.
f
Duder - I think the problem is that those words themselves contain a normative element - a moral judgement. It’s difficult to couch these terms differently, in most cases. But could you say acquisitiveness for greed, and laziness for sloth? Can you, in other words, rephrase without the obvious christian element in your list? It might help. The fact that you chose just these seven is a problem, too. Are there any other human traits that you could add? Just to, again, remove the christian connotation.
Maybe someone less obtuse than I can help without this, but it just seems so, so, christian, the way you put it.
f
Ah, no, no. That was a sidenote, I didn’t realise you were literally named Faust… Sorry for the misunderstanding, I reckoned that was an adopted name. I was thinking about Goethe’s Faust, as well as the quasi-European Faustian legend. You know, the guy that goes about looking for supreme knowledge.
Isn’t vice the indulgence in sin ?
mucius - I was named after my father, who was named after his father, who was named after Gounod’s opera of that name.
So there is no difference between sin and vice. Except that vice is merely the activity and sin the object. Just wondering if there were technical differences. I generally can’t get the categories of catholic sin straight, having never been a catholic, and having lost my copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I shoud get another one. Very good reference material.
Thanks for clearing that up. Just one of those things I wish I knew, from time to time.
Again, thanks.
f
I believe that the seven deadly sins have always been with us within our instinctual unconcious. Prehistoric man would have need those qualities just to survive. So I think they have always been with us, but looked upons as sins by the early christian church.
Is it just us then, or is it present in all animals but they can’t afford to act upon them. That could be it.
I think wild animals do not display these traits as they do not have the luxury of time. All their time must be spent on pure survival. Where our 4 legged companions are virtually in the lap of luxury comparatively speaking. they don’t have to hunt for food and shelter the revel in the abundance of it. At least our 38 do , We have cats and odgs of all shapes and sizes, There are loved, fed and sheltered, they get what they want.
Question is do they display the big 7, Yes, Some more then others Others very little.
Now do wild or feral animals do such? Yes and No, they display all but envy and sloth, those others are survival traits. An animal may display envy if it is in a pack and sloth if the pack is successfull but, those two quickly end when survival begins.
the big 7 is useful for survival but, when survival is guaranteed they become dangerous traits for society on the whole.