Kriswest
September 18, 2007, 12:39pm
41
Joker:
What you are denying is the natural teleology of creation which influences functions, goals, organizations and qualititative intentions amongst all species. This same principle is a deep part of all evolution biologically.
No, I am not, I just understand it different( perhaps interpret might be better) than you.
Have you watched or studied ants? They happen to be the only insect I really respect and like. They are so like us in many ways. While they seem almost like autmatons they are not. They are driven to enhance their nest. Seperate some and they still attempt to keep social order even without a nest or queen. Even one ant will strive to survive on its own. Really cool little critturs. I have a hard time killing ant nests. I always feel guilty. Other bugs , not a problem die you pesky MFers.
Ants have slaves , gardens, the equivelent of herd animals, they hunt they harvest ,There has even been some evidence of teaching their young while in “nurseries”, they create a society. Even more interesting is they can adapt to a change in environment fast. They seem to be evolving and changing. For minute little critturs they are quite powerful.
They are natural. So are we. Techonology and the use of it along with politics religion etc… does not make us unnatural at all. Now if we had another human sentient species to compare ourselves to then we would know for sure. We don’t. We are the only breed/species of humans that we know of. If you really need to prove us unnatural, well you have a long ways to go to do that. Or if you just need us to be unnatural, then by golly you go ahead and be unnatural.
The ants and I will know different.
Joker
September 19, 2007, 1:05am
42
Joker,
Neither have you shown why metaphysical idealism, or whatever you wish to call a function of our big brains, is unnatural. It is certainly unique to life on this planet, but uniqueness is by no means an anomaly, because after all, all animals, and things, posses something that defines them as that thing instead of as another.
Your argument about man being unnatural because of his higher thought capacity can be made about any other animal and their defining qualities. Because you equate uniqueness with unnaturality and by virtue of the Identity of Indiscernibles everything could be said to be unnatural. Man can be thought of as unnatural because he’s got a bigger brain and makes use of it more than any other animal; bats can be unnatural because they’re the only mammal that flies, etc.
There are some things that should go without saying. One of those is that reality is seen only as a representation and never directly. Another thing that should go without saying in regards to this model is that when the model encounters something that does not fit or is inconsistent with it, the model should then remodel, instead of itself not changing and declaring the anomaly unnatural. That’s what a static model is. One that does not change despite of it’s inconsistencies or anomalies with the world it’s supposed to represent; one that declares anomalies or things inconsistent with it as sins, unholy, or in your case unnatural.
Face it dude. You do not stand outside existence and can therefore never know what stands outside it (i.e. know what is unnatural, unnatural = outside nature). Besides, there is a clear fallacy in stating something that exists does not belong to existence. Given this, we must always go from the assumption that all that exists belongs to existence, and if something is incompatible with a model or representation of reality, then the fault most likely rests with the representation than with the represented.
When I am talking about nature or organic substances I speak of things amongst creation that are authentic, genuine, un-modified, and un - altered.
Now then let’s see if you think this newer explanation is too much of a narrow definition for yourself to grasp.
Neither have you shown why metaphysical idealism, or whatever you wish to call a function of our big brains, is unnatural. It is certainly unique to life on this planet, but uniqueness is by no means an anomaly, because after all, all animals, and things, posses something that defines them as that thing instead of as another.
How can man’s metaphysical idealism be natural in his endorsement of making the cosmos rational when all of existance around himself is unrational?
That is a contradiction Erlir.
Your argument about man being unnatural because of his higher thought capacity can be made about any other animal and their defining qualities. Because you equate uniqueness with unnaturality and by virtue of the Identity of Indiscernibles everything could be said to be unnatural. Man can be thought of as unnatural because he’s got a bigger brain and makes use of it more than any other animal; bats can be unnatural because they’re the only mammal that flies, etc.
Your dancing around my previous post with no success.
There are some things that should go without saying. One of those is that reality is seen only as a representation and never directly. Another thing that should go without saying in regards to this model is that when the model encounters something that does not fit or is inconsistent with it, the model should then remodel, instead of itself not changing and declaring the anomaly unnatural. That’s what a static model is. One that does not change despite of it’s inconsistencies or anomalies with the world it’s supposed to represent; one that declares anomalies or things inconsistent with it as sins, unholy, or in your case unnatural.
Another thing that should go without saying in regards to this model is that when the model encounters something that does not fit or is inconsistent with it, the model should then remodel, instead of itself not changing and declaring the anomaly unnatural.
So in other words you would remodel all of existance to give man’s perverse nature a free pass so that your over glorified idealism may prevail.
Yeah I now know where you are coming from, Erlir and frankly I am not impressed.
Static is anything that doesn’t meet your ideals.
Face it dude. You do not stand outside existence and can therefore never know what stands outside it (i.e. know what is unnatural, unnatural = outside nature). Besides, there is a clear fallacy in stating something that exists does not belong to existence. Given this, we must always go from the assumption that all that exists belongs to existence, and if something is incompatible with a model or representation of reality, then the fault most likely rests with the representation than with the represented.
Until you can reply to my previous points I am not going to take any of this at all seriously.
You are just buying your time with this deviation in hope that you can find more ways in not being straight with me in this conversation.
Joker
September 19, 2007, 1:20am
43
Kriswest:
Joker:
What you are denying is the natural teleology of creation which influences functions, goals, organizations and qualititative intentions amongst all species. This same principle is a deep part of all evolution biologically.
No, I am not, I just understand it different( perhaps interpret might be better) than you.
Have you watched or studied ants? They happen to be the only insect I really respect and like. They are so like us in many ways. While they seem almost like autmatons they are not. They are driven to enhance their nest. Seperate some and they still attempt to keep social order even without a nest or queen. Even one ant will strive to survive on its own. Really cool little critturs. I have a hard time killing ant nests. I always feel guilty. Other bugs , not a problem die you pesky MFers.
Ants have slaves , gardens, the equivelent of herd animals, they hunt they harvest ,There has even been some evidence of teaching their young while in “nurseries”, they create a society. Even more interesting is they can adapt to a change in environment fast. They seem to be evolving and changing. For minute little critturs they are quite powerful.
They are natural. So are we. Techonology and the use of it along with politics religion etc… does not make us unnatural at all. Now if we had another human sentient species to compare ourselves to then we would know for sure. We don’t. We are the only breed/species of humans that we know of. If you really need to prove us unnatural, well you have a long ways to go to do that. Or if you just need us to be unnatural, then by golly you go ahead and be unnatural.
The ants and I will know different.
Ants are uniformed in sequence of all their activities where men are naturally indifferent to each other. Your comparing men to insects is a useless deviation and to be honest it insults the current conversation deeply.
xzc
September 19, 2007, 1:35am
44
Joker,
