What are we told when a animal is locked up in domestic captivity? We are told that it is a wild animal often enough uncontrollable no matter how domesticated it appears to be.
When a wild animal is cornered held against it’s own will it will fight back with a violent like vengeance as a defense mechanism in order to defend it’s own sovreignty.
By understanding this does not such facet apply to the animal known to be people as well?
When did people become less wild or feral than they were say three thousand years ago?
What’s to say that feral is man’s natural state of being? It could be, and I think it is, that “wild” was just another means by which man struggled to stay alive.
Well, i mean, you assume this to be the case. When you say that man is a tamed creature, the implication is that man has an underlying nature from which he is tamed from. The burden is on you to show that being feral, and wild, which you say man is less of nowadays, is man’s natural state of being. I simply mentioned that on your way to showing this, you might want to also show that being feral and wild is not just another state of being which man evolved to in order to survive.
My personal feelings on this matter are this. Once one assumes that evolution is a fact and real, then one ultimately comes to the conclusion that man does not have an essence that makes him man. Scientists as I understand it, question even whether the term species has any merit to it. In other words, it’s hard to say this is a donkey, and this isn’t. Sure, there are some residual instincts which might reside in the body from a time when those instincts were useful, but this isn’t to say that this residual instincts are man’s essence–his nature.
That’s a good question. An answer that comes to mind is that no animal, in lieu of evolutionary theory, has a nature to them, although some are born with innate dispositions that persist in many of the forms that animals evolve to, such as grasping at the mother’s tit for nourishment in mammals for example.
But where we say that it’s in a deer’s nature to do whatever the hell it does during it’s life time in order to survive, we don’t say the same for a man. The reason for this could be because we are a bit anthropocentric and believe ourselves to have the capacity for choice because of our supposed transcendent consciousness which is capable of escaping, in a manner of speaking, causation.
Ah, man can/is described as having a nature/instincts. Any other description is meaningless and senseless.
We’re not ‘tamed caricatures’ just like a gorilla can adapt to different environments (in a limited way) so can humans, we adapt to these current environments (most of us willingly as history shows human societies tend to expand, and even hunter-gatherers tend to choose easier lifestyles when given the understanding choice) its just a natural progression of a social species capable of wild technological evolution and massive adaptability.
we have stone-aged brains adapted to living exactly like our ancestors did, but our instincts/adaptations allow us so much flexibility that we can live in current environments, and tend, to choose to do just that.
On top of that most humans, (human babies at least) can adapt to some pretty amazing circumstances, including massive violence/survival.
I guess the nonsensical point you’re trying to make is why do we think massive violencec outbursts are okay for tigers but not for humans, well part of that amazingg flexibility, part of those adaptations, is being able to peacefully work in social groups.
ON TOP OF THAT, theres no reason, that as an adaptable species we should accept our innate urges to nonsensical and pointless violence, ,especially when, often-times, in our new environments, its not even BENEFICIAL TO US.
though some people have less ‘control’ over their actions than others, depending on impairment of the brain or psychiatric conditions. But a pre-frontal cortex with massively reduced activity won’t produce the same results as a normal one.
