On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:32:46 -0700 "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 at 05:57 GMT, Paul E Condon penned: > > > > As the most recent user of this phrase on this list, let me join > > this discussion: > > > > The sense in which I meant 'know history' was to know what has > > happened in prior times when a certain course of action or a certain > > line of reasoning was used. For humans, instincts are stuff like the > > ability to acquire and use language, the ability to engage in > > thought about what others are thinking, etc. Clarke's postulates > > seeem to me foolish, but amusing. We don't have adequate definitions > > of what we mean by altruism in humans. Our lives are rather complex, > > and what might seem altruistic at first sight can be, on more deep > > examination,'enlightened self-interest', and visa-versa. > > > > Who are you, Kant? =P > > I haven't actually read the book, so I can't really chime in on what > Clarke did or didn't accomplish or intend to accomplish. > > [snip] > > > > > For me, the consistency with which mistakes are repeated, is a proof > > of the ignorance of history on the part of the players, not a > > disproof of the addage. > > I tend to agree here, except that it's not that simple, because the > factors are never *exactly* the same, and some people are better than > others at discerning similar patterns. In fact, I'd tend to believe > that most folks are pretty bad at it. Then again, that's probably > just self-aggrandizing fluff, since I consider myself to be pretty > good at it. > > ... Anyway, point is, it's not as simple as recognizing identical > situations. It's seeing similar situations, recognizing the pattern, > and being able to extrapolate from there. > > > It is hard to determine just exactly what is the special thing that > > makes homo sapiens different from other great apes. Some say there > > is no essential difference, others say that we were create different > > by God. I think we have a special ability to see ourselves from > > 'outside', and to think about how others see us. But others claim > > that this is an illusion. But if one chooses to live within the > > illusion, knowing history is surely better than not knowing it. And > > if one pretends to reject the illusion, ... whatever ... > > Heh. > > Every time scientists have held forth some notion that "humans are > unique because," later scientists have found a variety of "animals" > that do the same thing. I'm not saying that there might not be some > unique point, but the fact is, without being able to sit down to a > pint of guinness with representatives of other species, it's kind of > hard to really know what, if anything, is going on in their heads. > > Just today, I was reading Discover Magazine, and this scientist was > stating as "fact" that animals simply don't feel pain the way humans > do. Maybe that's what he has to tell himself to get through the day, > but last I heard, that was far from accepted Truth, and it's certainly > a concept that I have trouble swallowing, having seen my cats and dogs > seemingly in pain, seemingly panicked, seemingly joyful, seemingly > playful, seemingly sad ... maybe there are other explanations, but > they ring hollow to my ears. > Heidegger, not Kant is the one with the answer here. 'Dasein', - Man, the being for whom being is a question. With all due respect to cats and dogs. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
