1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are human beings a type of animal?

Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by max_freakout, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

    summary of thread: Yes, humans are animals. No, human science will never be able to explain everything unless humans stop being humans.

    And I feel like an animal today. Isn't that proof enough?

    salaam.
     
  2. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Yes the scientific method. But you're correct that rules change for different people. We've covered that a little already.

    No supernatural and natural is a product of philosophy. It was the rage ancient Greece.
     
  3. Crispy

    Crispy Fond of drink and industry

    Well that's the wrong question to ask surely?

    Intellectual inquiry in the western tradition has firm roots in greek philosophy. Modern science is a direct descendant of this tradition, even if it is far removed from those origins.
     
  4. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

    Not only in the West. Philosophy and science (and theology, if applicable) were always intertwined field. I for one find it impossible to look at them separately. It's an artificial distinction which in my view is impoverisehs all.

    salaam.
     
  5. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    It'd have to be born. Do you ever sleep? You were up late last night right? And now you're here before I made coffee.
     
  6. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    No I didn't redefine scientific inquiry. I'm talking about the philosophy behind it. Go back and read. And so there's no need to answer your second question.
     
  7. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    Why? If someone states that 'of course' there is a philosophy behind science, it seems fair to me to ask what that philosophy is. I've already given my definition of it – 'what works'. Is this what is meant?

    As to the history of scientific enquiry, it seems to me to be supremely irrelevant to this question.
     
  8. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    The philosophy is behind it now? I thought it was in front!

    It's the epistemological tango....
     
  9. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    So you cannot answer my second question – I presume 'it would have to be born' translates as 'I don't know'.
     
  10. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    No, it has its roots in interaction with the phenomenal world, with labour - 'human sensous activity', shaped by the nature of the society in which it takes place. All the rest is the waffling of the ruling class of the day.....
     
  11. Crispy

    Crispy Fond of drink and industry

    Ok, so are talking about the history of science, or the current stack of ideas that is called science?

    I'm finding this all rather tedious, tbh :)
     
  12. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Absolutely, the value is in being honest. As we peer out into the darkness of space trying to figure out what's what there is no reason apart from want for us to tell ourselves at the outset that some things don't exist by powering the tool of science with a philosophy that sets those limitations. In the generic use of the term it's unscientific when science is supposed to be pure of making any claims like that.
     
  13. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    You're right to find it tedious, I think. It only matters to those who feel the need to find a space for the 'supernatural' (translated 'divine') in intelligent discourse. It's slightly odd the intellectual knots people are prepared to tie themselves into in order to cling to this idea.
     
  14. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    No there's no use in answering it. There's nothing wrong with science as we have it, only the philosophy directing it. 'It would have to be born' means it doesn't exist at this time in mainstream science. You didn't sleep at all did you? ;) :p
     
  15. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    Ok, you're resorting to snide comments. Well, you're an idiot who, at various times on this thread, has used a word you could not define, argued against positions that have not been adopted by anybody on here and then failed to link to anybody who does hold those positions, and then pronounced an opinion about a philosopher you have not read.

    I have lost patience with you, I'm afraid. Good day.
     
  16. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    We can see what's there. :confused:
     
  17. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    Pure of making any claims like what?
     
  18. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Or maybe that's just how you see it. ;) LBJ you're going to eat your weaties, plain and simple. You have made those claims without knowing what your talking about. And on Schopenhauer - remember how that went down? You couldn't tell the difference between simply 'conceiving' of no god vs empirical evidence of naturalistic processes which didn't happen until after him. So by logic there is no way he had the 'science'. And anyway everybody knows the significance of Darwin's work but you apparently.
     
  19. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Read my post again slowly. ;)
     
  20. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    You've stopped making any sense.
     
  21. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Like what we've talked about for so long in this thread, maybe....conclusions made at the start of investigation.
     
  22. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    How so?
     
  23. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    It's true of both.

    It's definitely tedious because the original question was fucking stupid. Obviously, it's a question of how you define 'human' and 'animal'; philosophically or taxonomically.
     
  24. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    Ok, I've just popped back in to correct this factual error. Schopenhauer did deal with empirical evidence. Darwin made a great leap forward in understanding, but his ideas did not spring from nowhere. Others, including Schopenhauer and Von Humboldt also made great strides in understanding based on 'evidence of naturalistic processes'.

    Please stop making pronouncements on thinkers you have not read.
     
  25. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    Because Science with a capital S has no opinion on the existence or non-existence of God, or on a whole host of questions that are outside its remit like 'why is there something rather than nothing'. All it does is produce consistent and reliable (as much as possible) regularities regarding phenomena.
     
  26. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Great, you wouldn't mind laying their empirical work out would you? ;) :p You're jumping to conclusions. I never said Darwin's ideas were all his own. I'm highlighting his work. His work was the most significant even though uniformitarianist theories pre-dated his work.
     
  27. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    So you're fine with what 'science' is now? Anyhow what you said isn't true. Darwin and scientists since have talked all about God in their work.

    This is the denial of the metaphysical decisions scientists make.
     
  28. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

    I would like to start a spin-off, titled: "I am an animal. Prove me wrong."

    With as opening post: "Hint: You can't."

    That would be - I think - the shortest thread this forum has ever seen. In contrast to this one. Can I get a medal for it?

    salaam.
     
  29. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    No, Darwin referred to a particular truth-claim, the 'argument from design'. His explanation was better by virtue of the fact that it required less entities (remember Occam's razor?).

    He may have speculated that other phenomenological arguments for the existence of God were similarly susceptible to a purely materialistic explanation, but without providing such explanation he was indeed just speculating and not stating any kind of scientific fact.
     
  30. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Anti-homelessness stud.

    I wouldn't bet on it. :D
     

Share This Page