The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.
[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.
In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer
I don't need to suggest; you've listed most of 'em. I never contested the uniqueness of humans or the feats of cogitation they required. All i said was that these are the product of rational thought, which, before the herculean humans endeavours, were expressed in the purposeful, conscious use of tools and other innovations by rational entities of lesser endowment, but nevertheless, with similar brains.That almost sounds like you are suggesting there are areas of thought that are only seen in humans. — Patterner
I wasn't opposed to yours. I considered them incomplete. I had made a case, with citations, before you made any points - consisting of a list of uniquely human accomplishments which were never disputed. I didn't repeat all of the evidence I know of other species thinking rationally; I merely referred to the definition of the critical words.You have not attempted to make any points in opposition to mine. — Patterner
I think you have a narrow vision.You just say I'm wrong. — Patterner
I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why. — Wayfarer
I don't think I'm missing that point at all. I have not said anything to suggest I don't think we are animals. Of course we are. And we reached our current state the same way every other species reached their current state - via evolution. Also, I don't think we are the only species that is unique. I'm just saying we are unique in that we think in ways no other species thinks. That doesn't even mean all the aspects of thinking that we are capable of are unique to us. But some are. And they are what makes us capable of having such discussions about other species, and having them on this medium, while no other species is having such discussions about any other species, by any method.You may be missing a point in your last message. It is not difficult to find a unique feature or features in any species. (That's largely how we identify them). The interesting question is what is the significance of those unique features. So the short reply to your list is simply that none of that proves that we are not animals. Whatever is unique, there are also features that we share with them and they with us. We are certainly not above them. Indeed, in some ways we might be thought to be below them. War? — Ludwig V
Not knowing what scientific humanism is, I wouldn't want to comment on what it loses sight of. — Ludwig V
Do you suppose that I have any way of "really" understanding how any mother, never mind the mother of wildebeest, feels about the loss of a child - even though I have lost a child. The balance between understanding and projection is very difficult. To be more accurate, we can be pretty certain of our understanding at a general level, but when you get down to details it gets much, much more difficult.Do you suppose the mother of a wildebeest that has watched it's child, perhaps more than one over the years, murdered, torn apart, and eaten, suffers the horrors I would? — Patterner
I'm guessing that mathematics and perhaps ethics are examples of what you have in mind. Yet people seem quite happy to ask whether dogs can do calculus and to insist that they can make and execute a plan of action to achieve a common end. And then, attributing values to them seems inherent in saying that they are alive and sentient and social - even in saying that evolution applies to them.I'm just saying we are unique in that we think in ways no other species thinks. — Patterner
I don't understand you.Yet there is no spark of understanding. They somehow simply happened to stumble upon using X to accomplish Y, and they kept doing it. — Patterner
I'm not denying what you say. But it's more complicated than that. If everybody is special, then nobody is special. So some explanation of what "special" means here is necessary.And I'm not claiming I an incredibly special. We all are. Yes, even you. No member of any other species would be reacting the way you are now. One of the pitfalls of the ways we think that no other species does. — Patterner
I know that. But that's compatible with many different formulations of what it is. Still, thanks for the responses. I'm most struck by the common denominator in the values involved. I'm more and convinced that this debate is underpinned by the ethical issues that underlie it. It's not (just) the facts, but what you make of them. But now I'm puzzled because scientific humanism seems to be a common or garden humanism with a respect for and faith in science. Or is that all there is to it?Scientific humanism is hardly a fringe movement. It is hugely influential in modern culture. — Wayfarer
@WayfarerReligion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer
Not really. Evolution does indeed imply creativity, but not the kind that was supposed for God. Divine omnipotence meant that the wish is sufficient. Not at all what evolution does.Evolutionary biology makes us part of a cosmic story, in which evolution and/or nature is now endowed with the kind of creativity that used to be assigned to God. — Wayfarer
I think @Patterner may be including trial and error under "stumbles upon". For me, "stumbles upon" is pure accident, without even recognizing the problem. Trial and error seems like a perfectly rational procedure. (When you can work out the solution in advance, it's not really a problem any more, since you know the answer.)You haven't seen any of the intelligence tests set for various other species by scientists? They do not, once in a century, 'stumble upon' solutions; they work them out logically and in a timely manner. — Vera Mont
That's very judicious and well balanced. But there are deeper issues. For example, what thought counts as rational? For some definitions, possession of a suitable language is critical and whether animal communication systems count as a language, never mind one suitable for rationality, is a moot point. So the possibility that the two sides are talking past each other remains.All i said was that these (sc. animal behaviours) are the product of rational thought, which, before the herculean humans endeavours, were expressed in the purposeful, conscious use of tools and other innovations by rational entities of lesser endowment, but nevertheless, with similar brains. — Vera Mont
Sure. If you define a word to mean what you want it to mean it will mean what you want it to mean.For some definitions, possession of a suitable language is critical and whether animal communication systems count as a language, never mind one suitable for rationality, is a moot point. — Ludwig V
No, you won't. I'm talking about a philosophical position or even assumption, that the only true rational process is articulate reasoning which can only be laid out in language. I could have been clearer. Sorry.Sure. If you define a word to mean what you want it to mean it will mean what you want it to mean.
I have not seen that particular definition: "rational thought is that to which possession of a suitable language is critical" in a dictionary. — Vera Mont
The philosophical positions are clear enough. Humans philosophize; nature does not.I'm talking about a philosophical position or even assumption, that the only true rational process is articulate reasoning which can only be laid out in language. I could have been clearer. — Ludwig V
What counts — creativesoul
Depends on one's philosophical stance, doesn't it? — Vera Mont
The words have no fixed meaning, apparently. — Vera Mont
I know that and have been saying it for six pages now. But I'm in the minority.Creatures capable of thinking about the world were doing so long before we began talking about it. — creativesoul
That's the minority opinion.Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul
Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words.
— creativesoul
That's the minority opinion — Vera Mont
Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul
Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I think that truth is not an issue that can be resolved by voting. Though I know that being in a minority can be discouraging.That's the minority opinion. — Vera Mont
Ver neat. You are changing the subject somewhat. It may prove fruitful. Contesting claims about what are or might be unique differentials between animals and humans has not been productive. The two sides appeared to me to be talking past each other - hence my remark about language.Language less creatures have no words. Yet, they think about the world. Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul
Shared project, collaborative working, indirect approach to the problem. But no distinct moment that you could identify as "thinking".A not-so-clever Pyrennese who liked to roam would ask her border collie confederate to help her escape. The collie would stand on her hind legs and push on the far frame (not where it opens) with both paws of the big sliding patio door. She didn't have the weight to push it all the way open, but she'd slide it over just enough for the big dog to wedge her nose in and force it open. Then they would pad softly across the patio, around the corner of the house, duck behind the car and make their way down the drive. (I stopped them there, having watched the whole procedure. I was on guard, because they'd already gone AWOL twice.) — Vera Mont
Competing notions of "thought" and "rational thought" can be assessed by how well they 'fit' into what we know to be true, as well as their inherent ability or lack thereof to explain things(explanatory power). Evolutionary progression is paramount here. There are all sort of philosophical positions which must reject the idea of language less thought/belief, on pains of coherency alone.
On my view, that is prima facie evidence that they've gotten some things very wrong. — creativesoul
In my book, opening doors and gates is rational thinking. Battering them down would not be, unless it was preceded by trying to open them. I can't assume that everyone will agree. — Ludwig V
Can you tell that a man is thinking before he says or does something? Sometimes, when he opens his mouth it becomes obvious that very little thought went into the product. (just watch any interview with MAGA cultist)But no distinct moment that you could identify as "thinking". — Ludwig V
Is learning to open doors and gates rational thinking, or does it not meet that criterion? — creativesoul
No, Knocking down the gate is perfectly rational, if it works for you. What is very telling is if the elephant tries to knock down the gate, finds s/he can't and then tries a different tactic. I didn't think to cover that case, that's all.Elephants seem like they might be well justified in disagreeing. Why waste time trying to figure out how to open a gate, if knocking the gate down is a trivial matter? — wonderer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.