Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world is made up of things that are animal, vegetable or mineral. If we are not animals, which of the other two do you claim that we are?
Meh...I'm on grandpa's side.
I could see humans as something different. While it's true that many species have unique characteristics...we have A LOT o VERY unique characteristics.
*language
*incredible skill at inventiveness
*incredibly rapid adaptability
*memes which evolve our societies much faster than any other life form on the planet can change. Our ability to change makes bacterial evolution look like snails crawling through molasses. We can change with a word. Bacteria actually have to procreate to change.
*incredibly complex social organization
*incredible ability to alter our environments that makes ant tunnels look fairly pathetic in comparison
*free will. It's quite possible that no other organism on Earth has the ability to hold as many diverse pieces of knowledge in their mind at once as humans can, which allows humans to weigh various options against each other and engage in free will
Compared to every other species on Earth, so far as I can tell, we're basically gods.
Most of that has to do with our mastery over memes...but our mastery over memes is one hell of an advantage. Through meme evolution, our species has a way to alter its behavior many, many times faster than through biological evolution. Almost everything else on this planet has to either very slowly learn new trends, if it's a clever group of social organisms, or slowly build new behaviors into its DNA through evolution. Humans can alter the entire species with a single idea, and we've done that many times. That's something quite new, so far as I can tell. That's an entirely new form of evolution. It solves the same sorts of problems as biological evolution, but countless times faster. Also...memes can alter the behavior of currently existing organisms. You don't have to wait until new organisms are formed. I'm thinking human-style meme evolution makes biological evolution obsolete in almost every way.
I think humans are best described as something new. Maybe there should be four classes: animals, vegetables, minerals, and meme-users.
“We have, therefore, two kinds of thinking: directed thinking, and dreaming or fantasy-thinking. The former operates with speech elements for the purpose of communication, and is difficult and exhausting; the latter is effortless, working as it were spontaneously, with the contents ready to hand, and guided by unconscious motives. The one produces innovations and adaptation, copies reality, and tries to act upon it; the other turns away from reality, sets free subjective tendencies, and, as regards adaptation, is unproductive” (para. 20).
I would prefer to say that the 2 ways of thinking are objective and subjective
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that both of you are organizing your syntax respectively.
Language is not objective, although it is directed to be so. And animals do have languages and what Jung defined here as "directed thinking." Those would be dolphins, prairie dogs, etc. Their's might not be as sophisticated and simplified/structured as modern languages, but they can communicate with each other and direct their own thinking and each other's thinking through vocalizations.
Furthermore, as we see here, Jung is suggesting that objective thinking allows innovation and adaptation (two things animals have*), copies reality (monkey see, monkey do), and tries to act upon reality (really). However, what he actually would have meant, given the obsession with linguistic rationality, would be that other animals do have lower forms of objective thinking and we, as human animals, have even better ones that integrate conceptual frameworks such as the metaconscious use of language and concepts, closely tied to intellectual reality. *However, checking back on his semantics/definition, I have found that (likely) what he meant by "adaptation" was
Quote:
The process of coming to terms with the external world, on the one hand, and with one’s own unique psychological characteristics on the other. (See also one of it's opposites, neurosis.) ~https://frithluton.com/articles/adaptation-and-affect/
So, then what he meant was that directed/logical thinking allows innovations and coming to good terms with reality.
While fantasy-thinking (which Jung described as antique and archaic, with its subjective tendencies) is not involved in modeling reality but is a dream-like state which is unproductive as regards adaptation (coming to terms with reality). I think he is wrong because the various religions tell us that their fantastical religions help them come to terms with the external world and their own psychological characteristics. I don't doubt them, given their lack of acceptance for divergent thinking (as defined being open-minded and widely explorative thinking that can involve fantasy and art, rather than just structured/rational thinking).
Both of these, directed/adaptive thinking and fantasy/archaic thinking, Jung would have described as lacking in other animals. Yet, speaking out of syntax, animals can also dream while they sleep, and they can communicate about their environments (even to us, although not that well... sorry Lassie).
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 12-19-2018 at 02:58 AM..
If humans are not animal which of vegetable and mineral are they.
Water and Air (Feng Shui, Water and Spirit) is simply not a mineral. The categorization upon numerology of 3 is broken at that. Unless one means "inert" by mineral. Humans are not "animal" merely because they are not vegetable or mineral.
But again, humans are of course placental mammals, and all mammals are animals.
This human identity-politics obsession with factioning and sectioning/categorizing and wanting as a whole group (merely for categorically belonging) to be "better than them otherwise we will be depressed or unstably nihilistic" is rather annoying.
Humans are a type of animal, and the Sun is a type of star, even if it's special to us and uniquely fit with us.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 12-19-2018 at 03:35 AM..
So far all you've done is keep telling everyone else that they are wrong about everything. You have not stated your position clearly or given any reasons for it. I can only assume that that means that you don't really believe what you are saying.
It would help if you mentioned who you were talking about. Because I see no one who has done this. So your non sequitur appears to be pointed at an imaginary friend.
What part of "You dont have to empathize with others. You just have to respect their rights if you want them to respect your rights" did you not understand?
You arent adding anything to the conversation.
What part of "empathy is a part of our internal morality. Respect is a part of our cultural morality" did you not understand?
When we have empathy for someone, we respond in an instinctive, moral manner. As LT said. It helps groups to function.
Respecting someones rights is a cultural morality as it is not internal to us. You can respect someones rights while disagreeing with their position, for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
