What makes a human...?

[Sair]

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

Hopefully it won’t blow out and become too generic, but there are a couple of things arising from that thread that I’d be interested to discuss further.

The first is the question of what is meant by ‘natural’ in the first place. For me, this is a relatively easy question, though one with profound and occasionally troubling implications. Natural is, according to my philosophy, anything that exists in nature; basically, anything to which we have experiential access, anything that affects us - for we are ourselves natural entities. Nature is, on this understanding, all of reality, the subjectively good and bad alike. I see no reason to suppose that there is an extra reality over and above all this, one to which we are supposedly granted occasional, highly equivocal access.

Be that as it may, an obvservation I made previously was that what many people mean by ‘natural’, at least when they are talking about behaviour, is something closer to ‘normal’ - that is, more common that otherwise in their experience. But as I think most of us are aware, ‘normal’ can mean very different things for different people.

The second consideration is the distinction usually drawn between humans and all other animals - this deeply entrenched belief that no matter how closely we might be related to other animals in terms of evolutionary history and genetic similarity, there’s still something about humans that makes us special, over and above what makes us a unique animal species. This “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” approach is one I have long considered dubious.

What, for example, is this something that humans have which is possessed by no other animal to any degree? I’ve seen ‘hindsight’, ‘insight’ and ‘foresight’ given as uniquely human abilities, but what are these, really? What, for instance, is meant by ‘insight’? Does the ability of a matriarch elephant, say, to read the signs in her environment and act accordingly - better than most humans could - count as ‘insight’, or just ‘experience’? And if the latter, how would we know which human responses to put down to ‘insight’ and which to ‘experience’?

 

[empther]

Let’s see how far we can get into post 1 before we get to an error…

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

Hopefully it won’t blow out and become too generic, but there are a couple of things arising from that thread that I’d be interested to discuss further.

The first is the question of what is meant by ‘natural’ in the first place. For me, this is a relatively easy question, though one with profound and occasionally troubling implications. Natural is, according to my philosophy, anything that exists in nature…

Stop right there!

The human soul has nothing to do with nature, the physical world, physics, chemistry, or biology.

So the rest of post 1 falls apart.

 

[Gorgias]

The human soul has nothing to do with nature, the physical world, physics, chemistry, or biology.

Hmm… at that point in Sair’s post, he doesn’t seem to be referring to the soul; in fact, he doesn’t explicitly do so at all (although his allusion to the something that makes humans different does seem to be headed in that direction).

The issue that might be helpful to explore here isn’t the distinction between natural and supernatural (since that’s really what you seem to be getting at, empther), but rather, the way that nature is used in this context. When talking about what is ‘natural for humans’, what’s being talked about isn’t “what’s found in nature”, but rather “what the nature of the human person is”. This is the meaning of ‘nature’ as it is used in this context (which is, of course, a philosophical context).

So, the question of monogamy doesn’t come down to “what do we find out there in the rest of the animal kingdom?”, but rather “what do we find to be inherent in the nature of the human person? What do we see the ‘end’ (or the ‘directed goal’) of human life to be?”

 

[empther]

Hmm… at that point in Sair’s post, he doesn’t seem to be referring to the soul; in fact, he doesn’t explicitly do so at all (although his allusion to the something that makes humans different does seem to be headed in that direction).

But never gets there. And won’t.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

Hopefully it won’t blow out and become too generic, but there are a couple of things arising from that thread that I’d be interested to discuss further.

The first is the question of what is meant by ‘natural’ in the first place. For me, this is a relatively easy question, though one with profound and occasionally troubling implications. Natural is, according to my philosophy, anything that exists in nature; basically, anything to which we have experiential access, anything that affects us - for we are ourselves natural entities. Nature is, on this understanding, all of reality, the subjectively good and bad alike. I see no reason to suppose that there is an extra reality over and above all this, one to which we are supposedly granted occasional, highly equivocal access.

Be that as it may, an obvservation I made previously was that what many people mean by ‘natural’, at least when they are talking about behaviour, is something closer to ‘normal’ - that is, more common that otherwise in their experience. But as I think most of us are aware, ‘normal’ can mean very different things for different people.

The second consideration is the distinction usually drawn between humans and all other animals - this deeply entrenched belief that no matter how closely we might be related to other animals in terms of evolutionary history and genetic similarity, there’s still something about humans that makes us special, over and above what makes us a unique animal species. This “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” approach is one I have long considered dubious.

What, for example, is this something that humans have which is possessed by no other animal to any degree? I’ve seen ‘hindsight’, ‘insight’ and ‘foresight’ given as uniquely human abilities, but what are these, really? What, for instance, is meant by ‘insight’? Does the ability of a matriarch elephant, say, to read the signs in her environment and act accordingly - better than most humans could - count as ‘insight’, or just ‘experience’? And if the latter, how would we know which human responses to put down to ‘insight’ and which to ‘experience’?

First I don’t grant your basic assumption that all that exists is the natural world and your implication that there is no Christian God which caused, sustains, governs, and directs all the natural world to its desired end. Can I prove that to your satisfaction? No, but neither can you prove that this God does not exist, nor that all that exists is nature. Nor can you or anyone explain how in the world that could be possible - in any logical way.

If your basic assumptions were true, there would be no " soul " as commonly understood and it would be very hard to understand how man or any living thing were anything more than very sophisticated machines, bundles of matter, having no purpose whatsoever, having no moral obligations whatsoever, having no intellect, reason, or will as commonly understood.

In this world of yours we could all do what we darn well pleased, whatever rocked our boat, whatever satisfied our most vile passions. " Eat, drink, and be merry " until our personal machine ground to a halt through abuse. We could live intimately with as many as we wished, of either sex, age, or species. Life would be a nightmare for most people, and in the end, for all. Yes, a regular " Lord of the World " world or even a " Lord of the Flies " world, at the very least, a regular " 1984 " world.

 

[zro_x]

What, for example, is this something that humans have which is possessed by no other animal to any degree?

An immortal soul and a free will, niether of which produce observable effects.

 

[runningdude]

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

Hopefully it won’t blow out and become too generic, but there are a couple of things arising from that thread that I’d be interested to discuss further.

The first is the question of what is meant by ‘natural’ in the first place. For me, this is a relatively easy question, though one with profound and occasionally troubling implications. Natural is, according to my philosophy, anything that exists in nature; basically, anything to which we have experiential access, anything that affects us - for we are ourselves natural entities. Nature is, on this understanding, all of reality, the subjectively good and bad alike. I see no reason to suppose that there is an extra reality over and above all this, one to which we are supposedly granted occasional, highly equivocal access.

Be that as it may, an obvservation I made previously was that what many people mean by ‘natural’, at least when they are talking about behaviour, is something closer to ‘normal’ - that is, more common that otherwise in their experience. But as I think most of us are aware, ‘normal’ can mean very different things for different people.

“Natural” simply means that it exists without human intervention. Plants, rocks, animals, etc., exist, and would continue to exist without maintenance by man. Even animals selectively bread, are bread using natural mechanisms.

The second consideration is the distinction usually drawn between humans and all other animals - this deeply entrenched belief that no matter how closely we might be related to other animals in terms of evolutionary history and genetic similarity, there’s still something about humans that makes us special, over and above what makes us a unique animal species. This “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” approach is one I have long considered dubious.

What, for example, is this something that humans have which is possessed by no other animal to any degree? I’ve seen ‘hindsight’, ‘insight’ and ‘foresight’ given as uniquely human abilities, but what are these, really? What, for instance, is meant by ‘insight’? Does the ability of a matriarch elephant, say, to read the signs in her environment and act accordingly - better than most humans could - count as ‘insight’, or just ‘experience’? And if the latter, how would we know which human responses to put down to ‘insight’ and which to ‘experience’?

Humans posses an immortal soul, and are thus bound to live in a morally rational manner to preserve this soul. The human soul is natural; it cannot be produced by man, however it could be squandered by choices that separate the soul from its creator, God.

As plants, animals, and rocks to not have a rational, eternal soul, they have no moral culpability. However there actions can still be naturally good, or naturally evil depending on the outcome. A tiger kills its prey, causing suffering. A rock could fall on a human, causing pain or death. A monkey can feed and cuddle its offspring, promoting life. A dog can play with a child, creating joy. Humans too can produce good or evil, but bear the consequences eternally. All other elements of creation will fade away as time marches on, regardless of action or inaction.

A plant, animal, or even a rock could be preserved eternally, but this would be a miraculous (divine) intervention, not part of their nature.

Humans exist within the natural world, however are separated by the rest of creation by the gift of a rational soul. The soul obligates man to live an objectively good life. The rest of creation can be naturally good, or naturally evil, without moral consequence.

 

[Gorgias]

“Natural” simply means that it exists without human intervention.

I disagree. That’s one way of looking at things, but when you get right down to it, that distinction only means that it’s not a “exists without human intervention” thing, it’s a “exists by virtue of of a necessary creator” thing. And, even with this in place, ‘nature’ (if it means anything other than ‘creation’) speaks not to ‘existence’, but to ‘purpose’.

 

[Sair]

Let’s see how far we can get into post 1 before we get to an error…

Stop right there!

The human soul has nothing to do with nature, the physical world, physics, chemistry, or biology.

So the rest of post 1 falls apart.

What’s a soul and how do you know such a thing exists, let alone whether it’s natural or otherwise?

 

[Sair]

So, the question of monogamy doesn’t come down to “what do we find out there in the rest of the animal kingdom?”, but rather “what do we find to be inherent in the nature of the human person? What do we see the ‘end’ (or the ‘directed goal’) of human life to be?”

And in addition to this, is it proper to even speak of “ends” or “directed goals” in this context - in short, to ascribe a “purpose” to life over and above the purposes we create in life? If there is such a purpose, whence comes it?

I know the belief of all monotheists is that God determined the purpose of life prior to the creation of humans. But it’s worth at least considering the possibility that there actually is no ultimate goal, no predetermined reason for humans to exist - that we just do, and that purpose, as such, is something that arises through our existence. It could certainly be argued that it is in the nature of humans to invent our own purposes in the context of our lives - we observe ourselves and others doing this all the time. But in what respect, then, is it necessary - if it is necessary - to suppose there is more to our existence than this, than what we make of it? How is such a notion defensible in terms of human needs and human nature?

 

[Sair]

An immortal soul and a free will, niether of which produce observable effects.

If they don’t produce observable effects at some level - and here we come to my point about the superfluity of assuming a supernatural reality - how can we have any awareness of their existence or otherwise, and what are they for anyway? In short, if they produce no observable effects, they might as well not exist.

Perhaps you see here the bind in which anyone who claims supernatural reality must find themselves - anything that interacts with nature, at least according to the philosophy of naturalism, is itself consistent with natural reality. That means that anything that produces effects in nature is in principle identifiable as part of nature. If some other posited reality produces no effects, has no indentifiable impact upon nature, then it either doesn’t exist or exists in a completely separate realm, from which no interaction is possible. Nor, indeed, can we have any knowledge of any such reality, since the moment it becomes apparent through interaction with nature, it reveals itself as part of natural reality.

 

[namvietnv002]

bygsunflower poster 2012
Dang tin,up tin t? d?ng nhanh chóng lên hon 5300 di?n dÃn, qu?ng cáo.
Vu?t qua câu h?i b?o m?t và mã an ninh captcha khi dang tin, up tin
Dang tin qu?ng cáo b?ng nhi?u tÃi kho?n m?t lúc
T?o nick hoÃn toÃn t? d?ng, t?c d? nhanh, 1000 nick 1 gi?, t? d?ng vu?t qua captcha và câu h?i ng?u nhiên
Lên l?ch up tin t? d?ng lên forum di?n dÃn rao v?t
Don gi?n, d? s? d?ng v?i ngu?i m?i b?t d?u.
T?o tÃi kho?n nick di?n dÃn t? d?ng
T? thêm, b?t các di?n dÃn dang tin.
Auto post bÃi nhanh 500 di?n dÃn ch? m?t 10 phút.
T? d?ng dò box link d? dang tin.
TÃch h?p Auto Reply + Pageview Hack.
Xu?t báo cáo dang tin.
Nh?p tÃi kho?n di?n dÃn qua file excel
T?o/d?i ch? ký t? d?ng
T?o/d?i Avatar t? d?ng
T?o/d?i thông tin cá nhân c?a account
H? tr? spin content (spintax, spyntax) trên tiêu d? và n?i dung nh?m t?o ra n?i dung khác nhau khi dang tin
Hu?ng d?n s? d?ng bygsunflower poster
Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t ( luu ý dùng d? tránh thu?t toán chim cánh c?t)
20/5/2012 tr? di có nhi?u di?n dÃn báo mail v? r?t ch?m vÃ* d? ta reg dc 600 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃ*n g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1500 nick)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 12/7 thu?t toán Penguin 1.0

Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t và thay d?i proxy . Có nhi?u chuyên m?c hon ,data trên 10.000 ->dang 1 l?n theo chuyên m?c t? 60- 300 bÃi + seo blacklink trên 1000 bÃi
12/7/2012 tr? di reg 1 l?n dc 750 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃn g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1600 nick)
Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u vÃ* reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 15/8 thu?t toán Penguin 1.4 thêm spam blog
*
1/10/2012 tr? di tang lu?ng 100 hay vì 50 lu?ng , tang timeout t? 50 lên 100 , thêm thu?t toán , tang boxlink
*

---

Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u và reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)**

****Fix l?i c?p nh?t 29/11/2012 *thu?t toánPenguin ***2.0

Ph?n m?m dang tin post 2013 HQForumPoster

********- H? tr? forum **********VBB, **XenForo, phpBB3, IPB3

- Ch?c nang dang tin RONGBAY t? d?ng

- Ph?n m?m d?u tiên và duy nh?t t?i Vi?t Nam hi?n nay h? tr? Forum Xenforo*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum (Không dang ký l?i khi trên Profile dã có user/pass)*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum b?ng tay*

- T?o tÃi kho?n Email Yahoo bán t? d?ng.*

- Ki?m tra tÃi kho?n s?ng hay ch?t*

- KÃch ho?t mail t? d?ng*

- Dang tin ->**** Up tin → ****Up tin theo l?ch

- Spam ki?m bÃi- SEOKeywords*

- Spam khách tham ( trang profile)

- T?o ch? ký;**** ****Thay d?i avatar

- H? tr? gi?i mã deathbycaptcha.com, captchatrader

- H? tr? spintax ( cách dùng b ho?c c )

- H? tr? g?i tên ( cách dùng namvietnv002, forums.catholic-questions.org, 03:05:20, 18-01-2013 )

- Luu l?i câu h?i ng?u nhiên

• CHNN Server - Online
• Nh?p xu?t d? li?u d? dÃng*

---

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%***

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB *
**

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃ*o du?c)

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%*

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB
*

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃo du?c)
*

[phan mem dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/) | [ph?n m?m dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[** ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)| [phan mem seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)** | [ph?n m?m seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[ ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)
bygsunflower.net
Liên h? :mr :Vu 092.295.2095

 

[ColdComfort]

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

Hopefully it won’t blow out and become too generic, but there are a couple of things arising from that thread that I’d be interested to discuss further…

…The second consideration is the distinction usually drawn between humans and all other animals - this deeply entrenched belief that no matter how closely we might be related to other animals in terms of evolutionary history and genetic similarity, there’s still something about humans that makes us special, over and above what makes us a unique animal species. This “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” approach is one I have long considered dubious.

What, for example, is this something that humans have which is possessed by no other animal to any degree? I’ve seen ‘hindsight’, ‘insight’ and ‘foresight’ given as uniquely human abilities, but what are these, really? What, for instance, is meant by ‘insight’? Does the ability of a matriarch elephant, say, to read the signs in her environment and act accordingly - better than most humans could - count as ‘insight’, or just ‘experience’? And if the latter, how would we know which human responses to put down to ‘insight’ and which to ‘experience’?

I’ve always been impressed by this quote:

** Many a sensible modern man must have
abandoned Christianity under the pressure of three such
converging convictions as these: first, that men, with their shape,
structure, and sexuality, are, after all, very much like beasts…If you leave off looking at books
about beasts and men, if you begin to look at beasts and men then
(if you have any humour or imagination, any sense of the frantic
or the farcical) you will observe that the startling thing is not
how like man is to the brutes, but how unlike he is.
It is the monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation.
That man and brute are like is, in a sense, a truism; but that
being so like they should then be so insanely unlike, that is the shock
and the enigma. That an ape has hands is far less interesting
to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does
next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin;
does not carve marble or carve mutton. People talk of barbaric architecture
and debased art. But elephants do not build colossal temples of ivory
even in a rococo style; camels do not paint even bad pictures,
though equipped with the material of many camel’s-hair brushes.
Certain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society
superior to ours. They have, indeed, a civilization; but that very truth
only reminds us that it is an inferior civilization. Who ever found
an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants?
Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old?
No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have
a natural explanation, but it is a chasm. We talk of wild animals;
but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out.
All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability
of the tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals;
man alone is ever undomestic, either as a profligate or a monk.
So that this first superficial reason for materialism is, if anything,
a reason for its opposite; it is exactly where biology leaves off
that all religion begins.**

G.K.Chesterton, Orthodoxy

There is a bit of a phony statistic I hear often: our DNA is 98% identical to chimps. It is phony because like the famous bar of soap that is 98% pure you want to know what the 2% is. In the case of the soap if the 2% is an acid that burns skin when in contact with water than that is quite different than if the 2% is some sort of harmless filler. In the case of human DNA the case is the same. But we don’t need to look at DNA. As Chesterton says we need to leave off reading books and simply look at the divergence between humans and the other animals. Only humans have complex written languages, produce poetry and art, have religions, have a sense of humor, politics, technology that can cure diseases and kill everything on the planet. Philosophy, ethical thought etc. etc. etc. That the fact we are so similar but so ‘monstrously’ different is a simple observable fact. What are you missing? I suppose in principle some other animal species over millions of years could develop these traits but I suspect you and i would differ on how and why such a development might take place. As it stands now, the ‘chasm’ the great writer refers to is, or ought to be, obvious to all.

 

[Sair]

I’ve always been impressed by this quote:

** Many a sensible modern man must have
abandoned Christianity under the pressure of three such
converging convictions as these: first, that men, with their shape,
structure, and sexuality, are, after all, very much like beasts…If you leave off looking at books
about beasts and men, if you begin to look at beasts and men then
(if you have any humour or imagination, any sense of the frantic
or the farcical) you will observe that the startling thing is not
how like man is to the brutes, but how unlike he is.
It is the monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation.
That man and brute are like is, in a sense, a truism; but that
being so like they should then be so insanely unlike, that is the shock
and the enigma. That an ape has hands is far less interesting
to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does
next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin;
does not carve marble or carve mutton. People talk of barbaric architecture
and debased art. But elephants do not build colossal temples of ivory
even in a rococo style; camels do not paint even bad pictures,
though equipped with the material of many camel’s-hair brushes.
Certain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society
superior to ours. They have, indeed, a civilization; but that very truth
only reminds us that it is an inferior civilization. Who ever found
an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants?
Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old?
No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have
a natural explanation, but it is a chasm. We talk of wild animals;
but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out.
All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability
of the tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals;
man alone is ever undomestic, either as a profligate or a monk.
So that this first superficial reason for materialism is, if anything,
a reason for its opposite; it is exactly where biology leaves off
that all religion begins.**

G.K.Chesterton, Orthodoxy

There is a bit of a phony statistic I hear often: our DNA is 98% identical to chimps. It is phony because like the famous bar of soap that is 98% pure you want to know what the 2% is. In the case of the soap if the 2% is an acid that burns skin when in contact with water than that is quite different than if the 2% is some sort of harmless filler. In the case of human DNA the case is the same. But we don’t need to look at DNA. As Chesterton says we need to leave off reading books and simply look at the divergence between humans and the other animals. Only humans have complex written languages, produce poetry and art, have religions, have a sense of humor, politics, technology that can cure diseases and kill everything on the planet. Philosophy, ethical thought etc. etc. etc. That the fact we are so similar but so ‘monstrously’ different is a simple observable fact. What are you missing? I suppose in principle some other animal species over millions of years could develop these traits but I suspect you and i would differ on how and why such a development might take place. As it stands now, the ‘chasm’ the great writer refers to is, or ought to be, obvious to all.

But this is all entirely anthropocentric - we glorify the characteristics that humans manifest, the activities humans undertake, as if they are so special, so elevated beyond those of other animals…as if humans are somehow more different from all other animals than other animal species are different from each other. In doing so, we fail to recognise that humans simply do what all other animals do - work to further our own survival and comfort. That we have certain means to do this which other animals lack is largely superficial. Our basic needs are the same.

And we have no reason to congratulate ourselves for our evolutionary development - we have played little if any deliberate part in it. Much as we might marvel at the abilities of humans, how often have naturalists been astonished at the capacities of other animals, in their intricacy and complexity? In our supposition that humans are the be-all and end-all of ‘creation’, humans have not only ignored and belittled the magnificence of the rest of nature, but have substantially laid waste to the world we inhabit, with little thought for the needs of other species. Yet in our arrogance, we suppose that we are so special as to justify such actions, imagining that our needs are so much more important and pressing than those of all the other entities we encounter. It’s disgusting, if you really think about it…

 

[empther]

Sair’s post 9…

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Let’s see how far we can get into post 1 before we get to an error…

Stop right there!

The human soul has nothing to do with nature, the physical world, physics, chemistry, or biology.

So the rest of post 1 falls apart.

What’s a soul and how do you know such a thing exists, let alone whether it’s natural or otherwise?

What the soul is, its relationship to God, and its fate,
has been constantly discussed in ten of thousands of posts in thousands of threads on this forum for years. The soul and the God who created it is the subject of this forum.

Now you come along and ask what the soul is, as if its existence and nature were in doubt around here, as if nobody around here was aware there was a soul, as if I was the first person to use the word “soul”.

I have questions.
Why are you on this forum? Do you actually believe you will convert anybody to your godless way of thinking? Forget it. Ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

sair:

This is carried over from a previous thread dealing with the question of whether or not monogamy is “natural” for humans.

swans are natural.
monogamy is natural.

is monogamy for humans.
polygamy has been tried.
in practice it is seen only to benefit the one ‘spouse’ so to speak in the relationship.

i have seen an asian tribe in the mountains with a deficit in womenfolk so the women have two husbands. and more miserable looking creatures you may not find. while the wife is happy the spare husband broods in the hills at night.

similarly i have seen a mormon household with many wives and the only smiling face was the husband. the wives were sullen and depressed to a woman.

in practice, if this is any help, it does not appear to work to benefit all parties equally in the relationship.
so, for humans, it does not work.

so, what is natural is also for some species monogamy.
so, monogamy in other animals is difficult or probably impossible to understand.
so what is natural is not something understandable.
if its source was natural it would be naturally understandable.
in a natural world these mysteries exist outside of itself somewhere, tantalizing us.
it is that unexplainable mystery which gives humans their view of themselves, they, we, are a product of this mystery too.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Natural” simply means that it exists without human intervention. Plants, rocks, animals, etc., exist, and would continue to exist without maintenance by man. Even animals selectively bread, are bread using natural mechanisms.

Humans posses an immortal soul, and are thus bound to live in a morally rational manner to preserve this soul. The human soul is natural; it cannot be produced by man, however it could be squandered by choices that separate the soul from its creator, God.

As plants, animals, and rocks to not have a rational, eternal soul, they have no moral culpability. However there actions can still be naturally good, or naturally evil depending on the outcome. A tiger kills its prey, causing suffering. A rock could fall on a human, causing pain or death. A monkey can feed and cuddle its offspring, promoting life. A dog can play with a child, creating joy. Humans too can produce good or evil, but bear the consequences eternally. All other elements of creation will fade away as time marches on, regardless of action or inaction.

A plant, animal, or even a rock could be preserved eternally, but this would be a miraculous (divine) intervention, not part of their nature.

Humans exist within the natural world, however are separated by the rest of creation by the gift of a rational soul. The soul obligates man to live an objectively good life. The rest of creation can be naturally good, or naturally evil, without moral consequence.

Excellent. May I add for your reflection:
Aquinas, interestingly, appeals to personal experience in his claim that a person is not his soul, or his intellect, alone, as Plato and Descartes claim. A man cannot be merely a mind without a body because it is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body, and therefore the body must be some part of man.(Summa Theologiae Ia 76, 1).

If a man were just a mind, essentially unrelated to the body, he would not directly experience things that happen to the body, as he clearly does when he senses. Therefore, the human soul is in essence the substantial form of a human body, and body and soul together make up one substance.

The Immateriality of the Intellect Nevertheless, Aquinas believes too, that the soul of man is a subsistent spiritual reality. He argues that because man is able to know all bodily natures by means of his intellect, his intellect cannot have in itself a bodily nature. Having in itself a bodily nature would prevent the reception, and thus the knowledge, of any other bodily nature, since, for Aquinas, one knows by receiving the forms of what one knows into one’s intellect. Thus, if the intellect had a bodily nature, it would not be able to receive the forms of these things; but since it does receive these forms, it lacks any bodily nature.

Therefore, the intellectual principle, which we call the mind or the intellect, has an operation in which the body does not share. Now only that which subsists in itself can have an operation in itself. … We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called intellect or mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent. (S.T. Ia, 75 2)

Spiritual Soul as Form of the Body This creates a tension for Aquinas. On the one hand he believes that the human soul is the form of the body, the principle by which the body lives, and the principle in virtue of which bodily activities, i.e. sensation, take place. And such activities, being the direct experience of man, implies that man is composed of body and soul. Nevertheless, man also has activities which do NOT involve the body, i.e. intellection. (See Summa Contra Gentiles, II, 56) Thus, he believes that the soul exists of itself, separate from the body. It is difficult to reconcile these two positions (the soul is the form of a body, the soul exists of itself without need of the body), since every other soul that is the form of a body CANNOT exist without that body, e.g. the souls of animals. (S.T. Ia, 75, 3) Some charge that this tension is so great as to render Aquinas’ account of the soul incoherent.
Aquinas’ answer is that the soul has its own act of existence which it communicates to the body, but that, without the body, it is not a complete substance (since it has an essential relation to the body). (S.C.G II, 68) Consequently, without the body it cannot exercise any of its natural activities. Thus, the rational soul can exist without the body, but it cannot do anything in, what is for it, an unnatural state. The separated soul, then, needs God either to reunite it with its body, or infuse it with knowledge, both of which would be supernatural gifts.

From: aquinasonline.com/Topics/soul.html


And the Catholic Church teaches that the soul is the form of the body and the source of its life and existence and all its activity, except its intellectual acts and acts of the will which it performs independently of the body. Since the soul is the source of the body’s live, existence, and activity, and since the soul does depend on the body for much of the body’s activities - sensation ( through which the intellect is able to know the truth about all reality outside the body), nutrition, growth, reproduction, etc, the body and soul together form a single human being, a Human Person.

I don’t expect your opponet to read this. Much too dangerous.

---

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by runningdude
“Natural” simply means that it exists without human intervention. :bigyikes: Plants, rocks, animals, etc., exist, and would continue to exist without maintenance by man. Even animals selectively bread, are bread using natural mechanisms.

In that case, nothing is natural, not even man.
Rather, God creates the natural world, but no natural thing exists without divine intervention.

Humans posses an immortal soul, and are thus bound to live in a morally rational manner to preserve this soul. The human soul is natural; :bigyikes: it cannot be produced by man, however it could be squandered by choices that separate the soul from its creator, God.

If the human soul is natural it’s an arrangement of atoms and other things in the natural world.
But this is impossible. The soul is spiritual, which has nothing to do with the natural world.

 

[zro_x]

If they don’t produce observable effects at some level - and here we come to my point about the superfluity of assuming a supernatural reality - how can we have any awareness of their existence or otherwise, and what are they for anyway? In short, if they produce no observable effects, they might as well not exist.

Strictly speaking, the free will does produce effects, but we are not able to observe them. In order to observe the effects of free will, we would have to isotate the effects of the will from other factors that influence our choices-- namely, upbringing and genetics. This is something which we are currently unable to do, so we are not able to observe the effects of free will, at least not yet.

what are they for anyway?

Our immortal soul isn’t good for anything in this life. It just allows us to continue to be conscious, and perhaps preserves most of our mind and rationality as well, after our bodily death. Our free will is the ability to truly choose our actions. Unlike the rest of the universe, the human being’s actions can not be determined and do not even have predictable probabilities of occuring(as in quantum mechanics).

because of the intangible nature of these two qualities of human individuals, it is impossible to collect evidence one way or another as to the evidence of a soul, and while free will could strictly speaking, be eventually proven or disproven, it would be extremely difficult to do so. But doesn’t this render the soul and free will superfluous? Doesn’t Ockham’s razor and the null hypothesis stipulate that one should go with the simpler explanation that the immortal soul and free will do not exist after all? Yes, but only from a naturalistic perspective, and only by taking this particular issue in isolation. I do not believe that God exists because it is clear that we have a soul and free will. I believe that we have an immortal soul and free will because I believe in the authority of the Church, which in turn is based on my belief in the existence of God, which I believe because of a couple of arguments for his existence are valid. If those arguments are valid and God does exist, and the church does have the authority to teach on doctrinal subjects, then we know that People have souls and a free will because God, through the Church, says so. This knowledge is something that is only possible through revelation, not by studying nature.

 

[ColdComfort]

But this is all entirely anthropocentric - we glorify the characteristics that humans manifest, the activities humans undertake, as if they are so special, so elevated beyond those of other animals…as if humans are somehow more different from all other animals than other animal species are different from each other. In doing so, we fail to recognise that humans simply do what all other animals do - work to further our own survival and comfort. That we have certain means to do this which other animals lack is largely superficial. Our basic needs are the same.

You asked in what way humans are different from other animals. I pointed to some of the obvious facts. I didn’t glorify them or put any value on them at all. “Our basic needs are the same”, you say. Hardly. Do chimps write poetry? Do they make art? Do they have a lust for power beyond what would satisfy food, comfort or sex? Do they stare up at the stars and wonder about meaning and origins and end? On and on we could go. You asked for facts: there they are.

And we have no reason to congratulate ourselves for our evolutionary development - we have played little if any deliberate part in it. Much as we might marvel at the abilities of humans, how often have naturalists been astonished at the capacities of other animals, in their intricacy and complexity? In our supposition that humans are the be-all and end-all of ‘creation’, humans have not only ignored and belittled the magnificence of the rest of nature, but have substantially laid waste to the world we inhabit, with little thought for the needs of other species. Yet in our arrogance, we suppose that we are so special as to justify such actions, imagining that our needs are so much more important and pressing than those of all the other entities we encounter. It’s disgusting, if you really think about it…

No Christian would congratulate himself on his advanced development. As for the treatment of other species the Christian faith says Man is a steward of the Earth and must treat it with respect.