What seperates man from animal? Natural law v. Divine reason?

[GrandmaStabone]

Because of the abstract and loosely layered nature of philosophical topics, there are many topics that have become philosophical "classics" so to speak.

What is happiness?

Is there a universal right and wrong?

Does mankind serve a predetermined purpose, what is my part in it?

One area that has always been of interst to me is the study of what seperates man from animal. Kant believed it was the ability to reason.

In this theory, the "categorical imperative" animals are driven by natural law. Eat, sleep, mate - all very instinctive actions produced by very instinctive drives. The drive for these actions is of the greatest importance. Animals eat because they are hungry, they mate beacuse they are horny, etc.

Well, don't we also act out of these same instincts? Yes, but we have the gift of DIVINE REASON, meaning we can seperate our actions from these instinctive drives. I don't start jerking off at work when I am attracted to a new co-worker because it would be inappropriate and probably ruin my chances in the future. I don't react with violence every time I get the urge to because my ability to reason leads me to realize that to deny my instinctive reaction is the greater decision in many situations.

Well I was just thinking about this and it seemed appropriate for the new forum. Anyone have any views on this? I think this, at the very least, is one of the primary traits that seperate man from animal. If this is the case then, do you sometimes feel like the farther we "progress" as a society the more we erode this reasoning gap? I sometimes feel like as we have become more free and liberlized, the idea of moderation has faded and the mass of men lead these very hedonistic lives.


We eat whatever we want whenever we want. We have more knowledge in our first 18 years than our parents/grandparents received in a lifetime. Sex has become completely taboo and as long as you are having safe sex than it is largely accepted. Increased dependence/lessened workloads resulting from huge advancements in technology. All these things, while pushing us forward, have theoretically brought us towards a more primitive state.

Moreso than any generation before us we are able to act on our impulses, moreso than ever it is socially acceptable to do so - would that mean that we are closer in nature to the animal than at any other point?

[masse75]

I was going to make a wise-ass post, but I realize we've broken out OOT into different topics, so stupid stuff should be left in the old OOT.

[belloc]

Here's an overly simple and too-brief answer to one tiny part of your post (how man differs from animals) from the perspective of ancient philosophy:

This is the way the ancient philosophers thought about it: before separating man from animals, they first differentiated between the merely natural (i.e., non-living) and the living. Nature is determined to one thing, and the living is not.

Example: put a stick in fire, and the fire will burn it; it can't not burn it, because it is determined to one course of action because of the sort of thing that it is. Drop a ball off a building and it will fall; it can't not fall. But animals (and plants to some extent) are not determined to one. Plants, because they are alive, grow up and down (merely natural things tend only in one direction). Animals can sense things and move around and choose courses of action (the more complex the animal, the more they are capable of sensation and movement and appetite).

Now man, in addition to having what the plants and animals have, has reason, that is, they have that component of the living principle (soul) that allows them to grasp universal ideas, to predicate those ideas of other ideas, and to make progress in knowledge by arguing to new ideas from prior known ones. Examples: Man can define things (triangle: "a three sided rectilineal plane figure"), predicate things (Only man can conceptualize and express this: "A dog is an animal"), and argue to things (syllogize, i.e., prove things from prior known things).

This same rational soul also gives man the capacity for practical (i.e., ethical/moral) decision-making, and for art (making things). And because of the will, which is another name for rational appetite, he can apprehend the good, that is, the right course of action, and he can choose it (not that he always does).

So, man has the capacity know simply for its own sake (speculative knowledge, or science) and he can know for the sake of doing (practical knowledge, or ethics) or for making things (art).

I know that's unsatisfactory and not explanatory in every way, but that's how the ancients considered man to be different from animals.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, don't we also act out of these same instincts? Yes, but we have the gift of DIVINE REASON, meaning we can seperate our actions from these instinctive drives. I don't start jerking off at work when I am attracted to a new co-worker because it would be inappropriate and probably ruin my chances in the future. I don't react with violence every time I get the urge to because my ability to reason leads me to realize that to deny my instinctive reaction is the greater decision in many situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's like tourney strategy

[Girchuck]

Before you do something, you have an opportunity to run this task in your mind and estimate how safe it is. Or you could do it, and record your experiences, so that if it is unpleasant, the others have an opportunity to run it in their minds. Or you could do it, and have someone observe you and record your experiences in case you don't survive. So, the biggest separation is your ability to do mind experiments before you expose yourself to danger, and the ability to accumulate and transfer knowledge to others who will be able to do more better mind experiments.

[Siegmund]

If you'll let me back up for a second....

You've tried to sneak a really big assumption past us by how you phrased the question. You asked "What separates man from animal" -- which asks people to take "man and animal are separated" as a starting point, and then tell you why they were willing to accept that starting point.

To me, yours is a non-question, since I answer it simply with: "nothing does."

To me, the "obvious" truth of the matter is that man is a type of animal, perhaps one of the more interesting and capable types, but with a lot more similarities than differences to the others. The burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate that such a "separation" exists. What do we do that no other animal does? Communication, house-building, having family structures, dreaming, ability to learn, ability to use tools, getting into fights with neighboring packs of the same species - none of those does it.

[drudman]

Exactly.

There is no difference.

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

There is no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is ridiculous. I don't see the rationale in not seeing a gap between man and animal. Man is an animal in a scientific, literal sense, but there is a great divide between man and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Do you see why?

[drudman]

If you're talking about the superficial differences (opposable thumbs, less hair, that sort of thing) then what is even your point?

Here's my point: the question itself, what separates man from animal goes beyond assuming that there is in fact a difference, because built into the definitions of the words "man" and "animal" are conceptions that make asserting their sameness contradictory.

I propose we cast off the misleading symbols, and instead use the scientific terms. Once you do so, it is more apparent that any non-biological "differences" are created by us, and are not "actual".

I posit that the types of so-called "differences" (call them "reason", or "consciousness", or "the capacity to willingly commit suicide - all have been suggested as key differences) can all be simply chalked up to biological differences that evolutionary theory already provides the explanation for.

[IQ89]

a) Does mankind serve a predetermined purpose, b) what is my part in it?

No, and none. [I would answer why I believe this is, but it involves psychology and this is the wrong forum for that type of discussion.]

...what seperates man from animal.

The cerebral cortex is disproportionately larger in humans than in other species. (I believe this addresses most of your other observations.)