Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Philosophy of 'the Human'?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Post Re: Homo Symbolis

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Jack; "The rational is simply the ability to analyse "

    Moody; That is a narrow view of the rational.
    The ability to analyse is one thing, but the ability to synthesise is another.
    How are they different?

    The word 'Man' seems to derive from the sense of 'measure' [cf., Moon, mens etc.,]; so man recognises in himself the ability to calculate, to measure and importantly, to remember.
    Chimps can do this.

    Not only is he an anlyser, but a synthesiser; the latter is very important, as this is the root of MAN AS A SYMBOLIC BEING.
    You're going to have to explain this ("Man as a symbolic being") a bit.

    It is the ability to utilise symbology at all levels that differentiates him from the Animal.
    Symbols? Like what? Birds can cheep, that's good enough.

    Art and Religion are both aspects of this definition of The Human.
    A birds nest could be considered Art. Religion encompasses man's recognition of the inevitability of nothingness, i.e. death.

    Therefore the trash culturalist and the atheist are Sub-Human.
    I reject your arbitrary decision over what is 'trash' and what isn't.

    All of this stems from the 'ratio', which includes the irrational ['law' of pro-contradiction].
    I disagree.

    Man's reason allows him to be irrational and so make those perverse discoveries that only the illogical can find. It is also the reason why man LAUGHS a lot.
    Man has the ability to reason. Doesn't mean he always does.

    Jack; "- the conscience is irrational - it's simply fear (both Nietzsche and Freud covered this)".

    Moody; Reductionist; while sub-man can be tamed by fear, and a semblance of a conscience can be burned into the mind of a savage by blows and kicks, that is only a dim immitation of the real conscience that is inherited by the Aryan. That which is the child of fear is an aping of the noble conscience or in-witt which is indeed rational in the sense that I have described in the first answer.
    This 'Aryan conscience' is not a conscience at all. It is a natural tendency, and it only exists in a handful of individuals.

    Jack; "There is no reason to value anything whatsoever. The Objectivists claim that man must choose to value, or not to value, his life - this is apparently his first choice. However there is no reason to value one or the other. This choice is irrational. However, if one values something, then one is capable of fear (I'll define fear as the pain of potential loss of something if that something is in danger of being presently lost.) Animals have a conscience, they just can't think ahead "

    Moody; Again, animals operate on flight or fight and are tutored by fear according to that strict governness Mother Nature.
    Animals operate on whatever is going to maximise their genes to the highest possible extent.

    However, this is NOT equivalent to the rational conscience seen developed in the Aryan, and exemplified by his moral philosophy and political systems.
    Classical liberalism, anarchism, republicanism, constitutions, the rule of law - those are European political and moral systems.

    Animals have nothing of this; to say that they 'only' lack a 'thinking-ahead' [literally 'Prometheus', fore-thought] is an absurdity. Thinking ahead is what DEFINES the Aryan conscience. It is the imitation conscience of the Negro animal that only thinks behind.
    Jews are perfectly capable of thinking ahead, so are East Asians, and Arabs.

    Beware also of attributing human qualities to animals [anthropomorphism] - we only 'think' that the Hyena is laughing..
    If you want to go down that road, is the ding an sich unknowable? If so, why am I talking to you, or you to me? Are you even there, or vice versa? Are we not merely operating off our sense impressions?

    Jack; "Actually, a 'philosopher' named Peter Singer is a campaigner for animal rights. He's even gone so far to say sex with animals is ok so long as it doesn't cause the animal pain... Besides that, animals (generally) don't work, so property rights are rather absurd. I said generally, because once again chimps provoke ant nests with sticks and birds construct nests".

    Moody; Well, as you and Ominous are suggesting that humans are animals, I am still awaiting your arguments on the accession of equal rights between animals and humans.
    Arbitrary decision on our behalf.

    Jack; "The 'life-liberty-property rights' idea is universally applicable. The only reason it's held to is because it is universally applicable - the West-European world has an obsession with anything universally applicable. Notice you even tried to justify Race-Nationalism because you wanted it for everyone, not just Europe".

    Moody; Confusion; you are claiming a universality by saying human=animals; I am saying the opposite.
    All humans are animals, not all animals are humans.

    As to race-nationalism [and you have brought in a red-herring as usual], I am not saying that Negroes aren't a Race! Clearly they are a Race, and if they have nations, then they can have a kind of racial nationalism [albeit peculiar to their race].
    No objections.

    I am saying that they are not Human in the way that the Aryan Race is.
    There is no Aryan Race.

    Because they lack Reason [in the broadest sense] and they lack Morality.
    Define 'morality'.

    Jack; "What about the Magian Arabs, then? Are they not 'rational' and 'moral'? Whose morality? By what standard of value is it measured?"

    Moody; Morality is not in itself a standard; it is adherence to a particuliar/peculiar code of behaviour which is inherited.
    Then the Arabs are most certainly moral. You are judging them by your standards, not theirs.

    I have also described reason above.
    Ok.

    So other Races can be attributed with these gifts, although I would say that the Aryan is the examplar,
    Why?

    [quote]and I even suspect that the existence of such qualities in other races is due to ancient dispersal of Aryan genes among some members of other races.
    Aryan man IS the measurer; he is the Aristotle or the Newton of the Human.

    Jack; "Morality is the residue of theology. Move beyond".

    Moody; Narrow again; you yourself have talked of objectivist morality [although you used the word 'ethics' instead!].
    Ethics is conduct in relation to an environment. Morality is a priori behavioural restrictions. I don't believe in morality.

    I have defined morality in a non-theological way already - it is not dependent on the theological.
    You have not defined morality.

    It is you who RUN AWAY from the moral issues every time!
    Because I don't believe in morality?

    Finally, I'd posit a hierarchy;
    And I'd posit some comments in relation to this hierarchy.

    Gods
    Rubbish.

    Demigods
    Rubbish.

    Superhumans
    Define superhumans.

    Aryans
    Non existent.

    Persons
    How are persons different from humans?

    Humans
    Human is human. It includes persons, 'Aryans', children, etc.

    Subhumans
    Arbitrary.

    Animals.
    All encompassing.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:22 PM. Reason: updated thread
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Post To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    "How are humans and animals different?
    Chimps can measure, calculate, remember.
    Symbols? Like what? Birds can cheep, that's good enough.
    A birds nest could be considered Art".
    Aryans have given the world science, technology, philosophy, profound mythologies and art.
    To compare the grunting of chimps and the cheeping of bird's etc., with the High Culture of the Aryan displays itself the difference between the Human and the Animal.

    So the ground we have covered so far is pretty firm.
    The Human is the Reasoner/Thinker/Creator.
    The Human is the Maker/Symboliser.
    See how reason and creativity are linked and give us this broad basis for the Human.
    The Human is also the creator of the Moral/Ethical/Political
    The Aryan is the Leading Edge of this reasoning creativity; from him does all High Culture flourish.

    That is roughly the position established thus far, but before we go further, my opponents have STILL NOT substantiated their main objection.
    They say in effect [discarding all the dressing-up] that the Human is just an animal. Jack says of the category 'Animal' as applied to hominids that it is;
    "All encompassing".
    So why Oh why cannot Jack or Ominous or anyone else tell me why animals do not enjoy the same rights as their fellow animals?
    Why do those animals of the feather-less biped variety make a complete exception for themselves when it comes to the most basic of rights?
    We have had some calling for the extension of rights to all animals [this is surely Jack's "all encompassing"], so why won't those who say that we are all merely animals MAKE THAT CASE?
    Could there be a flaw in the very foundation of their argument?
    Do they have an argument at all?
    If the chirping of birds and the grunting of chimps is equivalent to Human Creativity and Science, then why not accord these animals rights?
    Why do the animalists run away from THEIR OWN LOGIC?

    Is it not rather the case that those who claim "we" are all animals REALLY mean that they themselves are sub-human - I ask this in all sincerity, as I find something very animalistic about Multiculturalism/pop culture/Negritude etc.,

    I do implore the animalists to answer me here, only then can we go on.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:23 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Jack; "How are humans and animals different?
    Chimps can measure, calculate, remember.
    Symbols? Like what? Birds can cheep, that's good enough.
    A birds nest could be considered Art".

    Moody; Aryans have given the world science, technology, philosophy, profound mythologies and art.
    Moody, what is the purpose of art?

    I do not believe in an 'Aryan Race'. I'm more than willing to accept aristocratic castes, but the idea of an 'Aryan Race' has been thoroughly abused. I simply don't use the term anymore. It is unapplicable to the West and Europe, unless we're talking in terms of the (remaining) Aristocracy. To use Spenglerian terms, the popular character of the West is aimed at infinite space, there's a world of difference between our Culture and the Indian Culture of Nobility.

    To compare the grunting of chimps and the cheeping of bird's etc., with the High Culture of the Aryan displays itself the difference between the Human and the Animal.
    My point is that they are of the same kind, but of a different degree (and that depends on what standard you're judging from, and who you are).

    So the ground we have covered so far is pretty firm.
    The Human is the Reasoner/Thinker/Creator.
    The Human is the Maker/Symboliser.
    See how reason and creativity are linked and give us this broad basis for the Human.
    The Human is also the creator of the Moral/Ethical/Political
    The Aryan is the Leading Edge of this reasoning creativity; from him does all High Culture flourish.
    Are the Japanese Aryans?

    That is roughly the position established thus far, but before we go further, my opponents have STILL NOT substantiated their main objection.
    They say in effect [discarding all the dressing-up] that the Human is just an animal. Jack says of the category 'Animal' as applied to hominids that it is;"All encompassing".
    So why Oh why cannot Jack or Ominous or anyone else tell me why animals do not enjoy the same rights as their fellow animals?
    Because we wield the power to hold back any granting of 'rights' to other creatures. The difference between animals and ourselves is subjectively observed degree, not kind. That is my point. Any 'line' seperating man from animal is necessarily arbitrary and cannot be justified.

    Why do those animals of the feather-less biped variety make a complete exception for themselves when it comes to the most basic of rights?
    Arbitrary decision on our behalf.

    We have had some calling for the extension of rights to all animals [this is surely Jack's "all encompassing"], so why won't those who say that we are all merely animals MAKE THAT CASE?
    Because animals don't have rights

    Could there be a flaw in the very foundation of their argument?
    My argument and that of Ominous's could well be different.

    Do they have an argument at all?
    If the chirping of birds and the grunting of chimps is equivalent to Human Creativity and Science, then why not accord these animals rights?
    Why do the animalists run away from THEIR OWN LOGIC?
    What makes you think I'm running away from my own logic?

    Is it not rather the case that those who claim "we" are all animals REALLY mean that they themselves are sub-human - I ask this in all sincerity, as I find something very animalistic about Multiculturalism/pop culture/Negritude etc.,
    No, this isn't the case. You find 'something' subhuman with what I prefer as regards culture, that's fine by me - I don't share your standards, I have my own. We were quite plainly born in different eras, and the age gap and the effects of it in cultural taste is, as you've observed, somewhat immense. We are two different people.

    I do implore the animalists to answer me here, only then can we go on.
    Objective nihilism.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:26 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    1.
    Let's look at a typical fallacy you supplied a couple of posts back.
    You said;

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    "Humans are animals, but animals are not human".
    First let's distance it from the Human;

    'Horses are animals, but animals are not horses'.

    The statement's absurdity shines forth.
    If we abstract it;

    'H are A, but A are not H'.

    A contradiction, or rather a pseudo-contradiction.
    It is actually just poor reasoning.
    Thus;

    A is B: B is not A.

    So what is wrong?

    Well, we must realise that sentences are often abbreviated statements.
    'Humans are animals' is actually short-hand for;
    'Humans are (a sub-set of the class known as) animals'.

    This makes things clearer; we usually leave out the part in brackets because we assume that much is understood.
    Now it becomes much easier to transpose the sentence and remain coherent;

    'Animals are (the class that contains the subset) humans'.

    Therefore your stance REMAINS; Humans are Animals.

    2.
    Now to take some of your questions;

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    "what is the purpose of Art?"
    Remaining on-topic, I can give a partial answer; art serves the purpose of distinguishing the Human from the Animal.

    "Are the Japanese Aryans?"
    No, but the Samurai culture was Noble.

    "Because we wield the power to hold back any granting of 'rights' to other creatures".
    To say 'hold back' implies that we are depriving them!
    Animals do not have rights.
    As far as Humans are concerned, we may have Duties towards Animals, but that does give Animals rights.
    Therefore Animals are not, like us, Moral Beings.
    If Animals had rights, then they would be punished for murder, for example. Aren't our prisons over-crowded enough as it is?

    3.
    So my distinction remains proved.
    Not only is the Human a Rational Being, he is also a Moral Being.

    THIS IS A DIFFERENCE IN KIND.

    There is nothing 'arbitrary' here; you have fallen prey to relativism.

    "We were quite plainly born in different eras, and the age gap and the effects of it in cultural taste is, as you've observed, somewhat immense".
    I may be older then you, but we are of the same era. My love for writers and musicians of past centuries has nothing to do with my own life-span. It is particularly shallow to think that you can only appreciate the art of your own life-time.
    I have enjoyed JS Bach since my early school years.

    Indeed, as Nietzsche said, I think it wise to put at least three centuries between ourselves and our cultural taste.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:36 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    1.
    Let's look at a typical fallacy you supplied a couple of posts back.
    You said;

    "Humans are animals, but animals are not human".

    First let's distance it from the Human;

    'Horses are animals, but animals are not horses'.

    The statement's absurdity shines forth.
    If we abstract it;

    'H are A, but A are not H'.

    A contradiction, or rather a pseudo-contradiction.
    Pseudo-contradiction, yes.

    It is actually just poor reasoning.
    I disagree.


    Therefore your stance REMAINS; Humans are Animals.
    I know.

    2.
    Now to take some of your questions;

    Jack; "what is the purpose of Art?"

    Moody; Remaining on-topic, I can give a partial answer; art serves the purpose of distinguishing the Human from the Animal.
    That could be sene as a side effect. Let's move slightly off topic. What is art for?

    Jack; "Are the Japanese Aryans?"

    Moody; No, but the Samurai culture was Noble.
    The Japanese satisfy all that you have mentioned so far as 'Aryan'.

    Jack; "Because we wield the power to hold back any granting of 'rights' to other creatures".

    Moody; To say 'hold back' implies that we are depriving them!
    It wasn't theirs in the first place, it's a privelige granted, and we have not granted it. That we can grant said privelige is evidence we have a lot of power and they have a lot less.

    Animals do not have rights.
    That's right.

    As far as Humans are concerned, we may have Duties towards Animals, but that does give Animals rights.
    Therefore Animals are not, like us, Moral Beings.
    We don't have 'duties' towards animals. That's sentimentalism formalised.

    If Animals had rights, then they would be punished for murder, for example. Aren't our prisons over-crowded enough as it is?
    Wolves eat sheep. We simply kill them.

    3.
    So my distinction remains proved.
    Not only is the Human a Rational Being, he is also a Moral Being.

    THIS IS A DIFFERENCE IN KIND.

    There is nothing 'arbitrary' here; you have fallen prey to relativism.
    I do not believe it's a difference in kind. It is a difference in degree.

    Jack; "We were quite plainly born in different eras, and the age gap and the effects of it in cultural taste is, as you've observed, somewhat immense".

    Moody; I may be older then you, but we are of the same era. My love for writers and musicians of past centuries has nothing to do with my own life-span. It is particularly shallow to think that you can only appreciate the art of your own life-time.
    I have enjoyed JS Bach since my early school years.
    Great for you. I like keep connected with my own generation and with my own existence, here and now. Not to suggest you don't, no sarcasm intended.

    Indeed, as Nietzsche said, I think it wise to put at least three centuries between ourselves and our cultural taste.
    Nietzsche and I disagree.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:32 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    "Let's move slightly off topic. What is art for?"
    That would be better discussed on the Art forum.
    For the purpose of this thread, Art serves to illustrate the difference in kind between the Animal and the Human.
    So as to not avoid your question, I would say that Art itself is not a 'utility', but rather the goal toward which the Human strives in order to become more human - superhuman if you will.
    Art is deeply contradictory.

    "The Japanese satisfy all that you have mentioned so far as 'Aryan'".
    Apart from a cultural/racial specificity; hence the distinction.

    "We don't have 'duties' towards animals".
    That we behave as if we do, shows that we are Moral Beings, while Animals are not.

    "I do not believe it's a difference in kind. It is a difference in degree".
    Irrational belief on your part.
    If out of all the numerous supposed animal species on earth, ONLY MAN is a rational and moral being, then man is exceptional.
    That is an exception to such a tremendous degree that it can only be considered a difference in kind.
    It could only be a difference of degree if there were many other rational/moral species of animals - there are not.
    The Human is UNIQUE - ergo, he is different IN KIND.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:36 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Jack; "Let's move slightly off topic. What is art for?"

    Moody; That would be better discussed on the Art forum.
    Possibly. I think it links in strongly with psychology, and philosophy was supposed to encompass all the fields of human knowledge (once upon a time...)

    For the purpose of this thread, Art serves to illustrate the difference in kind between the Animal and the Human.
    I don't believe there's a difference in kind, but a difference in degree. A large difference, yes, but then that depends on where you draw the line between human and non-human animal.

    So as to not avoid your question, I would say that Art itself is not a 'utility', but rather the goal toward which the Human strives in order to become more human - superhuman if you will.
    Ok.

    Art is deeply contradictory.
    We disagree, but our disagreement over whether or not you are right here irrelevant to this discussion.

    Jack; "The Japanese satisfy all that you have mentioned so far as 'Aryan'".

    Moody; Apart from a cultural/racial specificity; hence the distinction.
    Yockey suggested the Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian and Chinese Cultures were founded by Aryans. What do you think of that idea?

    Jack; "We don't have 'duties' towards animals".

    Moody; That we behave as if we do, shows that we are Moral Beings, while Animals are not.
    Wolves look after their kin. They fight and die for their pack, they feed their long, they follow the leaders of the pack, and care for their kin communally - on what grounds do you say there is no 'morality'? If being morally human means being kind, one could point in the direction of Apartheid in old South Africa and ask where the morality was.

    Jack; "I do not believe it's a difference in kind. It is a difference in degree".

    Moody; Irrational belief on your part.
    Quite rational. Animals look after their kin, fight and die for their young, feed each other, vampire bats are known to share blood with other vampire bats they've never seen before. Varieties of apes are well capable of analysing situations and using tools to achieve objectives (e.g. get a stick, provoke an ants nest, eat), arctic wolves are well known for group combat and organisation. Meer cats surrender their lives so their kin may survive. Birds are known for grooming themselves, constructing nests, in order to render themselves attractive, wolves howl in common to bring together group strength - no, it isn't irrational. There is no fundamental difference between humans an animals. We are animals, highly developed ones, but there is no fundamental difference.

    If out of all the numerous supposed animal species on earth, ONLY MAN is a rational and moral being, then man is exceptional.
    Your premise is wrong. Man is not the only rational and moral being.

    That is an exception to such a tremendous degree that it can only be considered a difference in kind.
    I strongly disagree.

    It could only be a difference of degree if there were many other rational/moral species of animals - there are not.
    Oh, there certainly are.

    The Human is UNIQUE - ergo, he is different IN KIND.
    This is the arrogance humans are capable of. We are not unique, we are different by degree.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:38 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Philosophy of 'the Human'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    I mean, in short, 'what is Human?'
    >Here we have the nub of our question: what separates the Human from the Animal?
    Only when we have dwelt on this can we begin to look at the concept Race, let alone the idea of the Super-Human.
    Nice question. A short answer from the perspective of Heidegger would be to say that the realm/notion of "uncanniness" separates the Human from the Animal.
    Cannot think of anything else right away.

    I also think Humans are different from Animals in their fragility than the opinion which has it otherwise. Humans snapping has a possibility of poetic madness, something animals don't have or do not show. At the worst, we can only speak of raging bulls haha...
    Last edited by Moody; Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 AM. Reason: added quote marks

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack
    "I don't believe there's a difference in kind [between man and animals], but a difference in degree. A large difference, yes, but then that depends on where you draw the line between human and non-human animal".
    As I said, a UNIQUE difference is enough to qualify for a difference of 'kind'. Aristotle hit the nail on the head when he called animals 'alogon'.
    Now that is 'a-', negative prefix, and 'logos', meaning BOTH language and reasoning.
    Animals are without speech/reasoning.
    Man is unique in his use of language which in itself points to his rationality; from this reasoning/languistic ability stems his morality, his arts his science and his philosophy. From this 'logos' does he create civilisations and voyage beyond the stars.
    Compare this to the alogon animals; this can ONLY be a difference of KIND.

    "Yockey suggested the Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian and Chinese Cultures were founded by Aryans. What do you think of that idea?"
    There is some evidence for this, most certainly.

    "Wolves look after their kin. They fight and die for their pack, they feed their long, they follow the leaders of the pack, and care for their kin communally - on what grounds do you say there is no 'morality'?"
    You are describing instinctive behaviour, not morality.
    Morality begins with SELF-REFLECTION; this is unique to the Human.

    "If being morally human means being kind, one could point in the direction of Apartheid in old South Africa and ask where the morality was".
    'Kind'? - I never used the word in that way.
    Morality is expressed in Law, so that Aparthood was an expression of morality. As we see, the Negro is not a moral being and is unable to operate if he is treated as a moral being, any more than any other animal could.

    "Animals look after their kin, fight and die for their young, feed each other, etc., etc.
    There is no fundamental difference between humans an animals. We are animals, highly developed ones, but there is no fundamental difference".
    As I have shown, Humans are UNIQUELY rational [all the things you list of animals are only instinctual].
    We do not only have beliefs, we are able to give REASONS for them.
    As I have said, we can express our rationality in words, so much so that we inhabit a Human world that is very different from that of animals.
    We are able also to think ahead and PLAN, as well as dwell on the past and create history. Whereas animals are fully in the present and proceed only upon instinct.
    Most of all we are able to REFLECT ON THE SELF.
    That 'I' which Descartes' 'cogito' reflected upon; THAT makes us uniquely Human and different from animals in kind.
    Man is a moral being by dint of that rational reflectivity.
    He is able to distinguish between Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties, for example; between Legality and Morality.
    Only Man can do this.
    Just as Man has a unique Aesthetic Sense, so he too has a unique Moral Sense.
    He realises that there are MORAL QUALITIES. So, while being Negroid may be a physical quality, being a Slave is a moral quality.
    To take the following list from Scruton's 'Modern Philosophy' of differences between animals and Humans;
    1) Animals have desires but they do not make choices.
    2) Animals have consciousness, but no self-consciousness.
    3) Animals relate to one another, but not as persons.
    4) In general animals do not have rights and duties.
    5) Animals lack the aesthetic sense.
    6) The passions of animals are circumscribed - to a great extent, their emotional limitations are explained by their intellectual limitations.
    7) Animals are humourless.
    8) Animals lack speech.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 3rd, 2006 at 02:40 PM. Reason: up-dated thread
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Post Re: To the Animalists

    We do not only have beliefs, we are able to give REASONS for them.
    No, humans certainly cannot give reasons for anything they do. Why do you value your life Moody?

    We are able also to think ahead and PLAN, as well as dwell on the past and create history.
    Arctic wolves are known for organising, spanning themselves out over a few miles, all to take down a musk ox.

    Whereas animals are fully in the present and proceed only upon instinct.
    Humans can't proceed on anything else but instinct. 'Reason' (analysis) is something we've evolved, and if we consider it to be intelligence, then a lot of other animals have it to some degree or another too.

    1) Animals have desires but they do not make choices.
    Prove it.

    2) Animals have consciousness, but no self-consciousness.
    Beat a dog often enough and it'll have self-conscious fear every time you walk past it. I believe humans different in degree, not kind, to animals.

    3) Animals relate to one another, but not as persons.
    What exactly does this mean? The command/obedience structure is strong in some groups of monkeys.

    4) In general animals do not have rights and duties.
    Neither do a lot of humans. Besides that, if a wolf in a pack makes his surrender known during a fight, he is spared. 'Rights of the captives'?

    5) Animals lack the aesthetic sense.
    And what exactly is that? Peacocks go after those amongst them with the most attractive tails.

    6) The passions of animals are circumscribed - to a great extent, their emotional limitations are explained by their intellectual limitations.
    I have no objections here. Likewise often the most tragic of individuals are far more intelligent than a human retard 'Intellectual limitations'. Where is the line drawn?

    7) Animals are humourless.
    I can agree with this.

    8) Animals lack speech.
    Dolphins, whales, wolves, dogs, etc. can communicate to each other to a degree. The human ability to do so is only far more extended. Various types of apes have been taught sign language.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, August 10th, 2007, 04:49 PM
  2. Why Do Philosophy?
    By Moody in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Sunday, December 3rd, 2006, 11:50 PM
  3. Range of Heights in Human Demonstrates Plasticity of Human Species
    By Glenlivet in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 09:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •