Appearances change but everything beyond that which appears does not change.
Appearances of buildings change but man remains the same.
Appearances of thought and knowing change but man remains the same.
Appearances of material things change but man remains the same.
Appearances of man subtely soothe the heart in deception of peace and prosperity yet violent warlike man remains the same like yesterday’s conquering in the rain.
How does this account for innovations like pacifism and vegetarianism? Both are highly anomalous from an evolutionary perspective, and seem to represent real change in the needs, desires, and the very cognition of humans in the past few thousand years.
How does it account for evolution in general? If you’re going to say that the shift from non-life to life is simply one of appearances, I think your definition of ‘change’ and ‘appearance’ are so skewed as to be meaningless.
Would you trust appearances for what they are then, Joker?
Does appearance hide “true” reality?
pacifism and vegetarianism aren’t innovations, they are aspects of religions…
they only seem to represent change to those who believe in them…
and the band plays on…
-Imp
And then Joker would say The Song Remains the Same :-"
Behind every appearance of things there lies ulterior motives.
Yes I would because I like this rythmizing game! 
Bingo.
How is pacifism and vegetarianism anything beyond being religious appearances? 
How is the nature of man changing in these particular instances?
Only the appearances of things change as everything else including the nature of man remains the same where such conceptualize appearances are only a arbitrary means to a predatory end. ( Man’s unchanging nature being predation.)
Elaborate that question more, please.
Elaborate more please.
I guess I’ll focus on my more general point: a few million years ago, human’s did not exist. They do now. This represents a difference that seems to go deeper than appearances. For it to only be a change in appearances, your statement must be interpreted to indicate that only appearances change because everything else is an expression of unchanging natural laws. If that’s the case, your point is so general as to be useless.
Things change in that they function differently, in that they act differently, in that they can be differentiated in different ways. There are clear divisions between apes and humans where there used to be but one species. Why doesn’t all that count as change?
This post of mine implies only to things after our creation.
Why should it?
Also; Beyond appearances has not man’s nature still remained a predatory one since his creation?
A basic yes or no answer will suffice.
If you admit that man has remain a predator in a state of predation ever since his creation you are basically admitting that only appearances of things has changed while his primary nature has remain unchanged unto being unchecked.
No, humans have not remained predatory. Our food is largely farmed. We’re more similar to hive animals than predatory animals, in that we cultivate our own sustenance.
Look at the physical attributes that are selected for: in tribal cultures, physical strength and ability is valued, but in modern society Bill Gates and Sergei Brin that are the big bread winners. That is a fundamental change in the strategy that humans employ. Where physical ability allows us to defend against each other, smarts like Gates’ and Brin’s allow them to make money by providing services to others. They are valued because their innovations are cooperative. That’s new, relatively speaking.
But why limit it to when humans sprang up? That’s a relatively small part of history. It’s like saying “people never change, because we’re all the same person we were yesterday.” It’s only true when considered under an arbitrarily limited scope.
no, humans are still predatory. we simply cage our prey to make the hunt simple.
the best athletes are still at the top of the hierarchy…
(once again, humans are declared equal, sam colt made it so…)
-Imp
A friend of mine once discovered after being ill for a few years, that when he again watched the news when he was well again - that it was all exactly the same news, just different players.
What definition of predatory are we using? Because for the most part, our relationship with the animals we eat is symbiotic. Cattle, chickens, pigs, they all depend entirely on us for the survival of their species, which are so inbred and domesticated that they couldn’t survive a day without us. Most of the predation we do do is recreational.
As such, we aren’t predatory in any usual biological sense. Even if you want to label it predation, it is clearly predation of a different sort, representing a change from early humans.
no, we have simply taken the hunting part out of the hunt. all that remains is the harvesting and it has always been thus.
-Imp
I think my argument holds as long as you admit that the hunting part is out.
I always find your posts amusing and wise.
Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?
All those animals domesticated are caged up which is an act of predation much like how the spider weaves it’s web.
Just out of curiousity…What do you think is the defining feature of men? I can’t wait to hear your reply as I am sure it will be filled with wild humanistic imagination making out man to be somthing else other than what he already is.
What is the behavior pattern of a spider? Predation.
It catches it’s food like that of a farmer during harvesting time.