It seems to me that most people regard humanity as a whole as debased, "fallen" as it were (although this may just be a western concept), contoled by self-interest. But they also view individual humans as enlightened, sane and generaly good, and woe to those who do not meet this standard: our criminals and lunatics frighten us by showing us that part of ourselves we do not wish to see.
I, on the other hand, view humanity as enlightened, sane and generaly good, but individual humans as weak and petty.
I always love to quote the South African anthropologist Robert Ardrey:
quote: We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.
Humanity will prevail with the human species, even as, in the words of my favorite singer/songwriter, John Stewart
quote: Day by day and one by one/we fall like candles in the sun
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:I, on the other hand, view humanity as enlightened, sane and generaly good, but individual humans as weak and petty.
What would you say if I showed you a mob of people attacking someone?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Is a mob really a microcosm, or is it a collection of individuals?
There are always those who quite the mob. Riots don't make evolutionary sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What would you say if I showed you a mob of people attacking someone?
A mob of individuals humans?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Who are you rolling your eyes at*, or was it equal-opportunity?
*yeah, I know. Preposition. I don't care.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
A mob may behave as a collection of individuals, or it may operate as a cohesive unit. Hmm...gray area.
I can find examples to relate how a mob of people attacking someone relates to how our society functions. For example, in our political system, look at how the majority attacks the rights of the minority...there's quite a few situations where that happens.
I think that riots are part of the evolutionary process. Every system that's designed, from its conception, begins breaking down. Surely you've heard of entropy?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Kwea, that was just my reaction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Is a mob really a microcosm, or is it a collection of individuals?
Pel, What do you think the word microcosm means? Because, I'm pretty much sure you are using it incorrectly there.
Also, could you maybe explain why and/or in what manner human beins as a while are enlightened, whereas individuals are degraded? If you could do this, you might demonstrate that you are worthy of more than the mockery that you seem to me to basically be begging for.
---
People speak of mobs as if they are bad things, but many times they are not. Mobs have demonstrated a power to elevate the people in them over what they would normally do as well as worsening them. It's a terribly unstable situation, the normal rules and strictures are loosened. A mob's reactions is not as well defined by what it is but rather by what catalyst it crystalizes around.
To a certain extent, the same can be said of the individual human personality.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, Pel used the word microcosm correctly.
He was asking whether a mob is more like humanity in general (a miniature version of humanity; a microcosm if you will) or more like inidividuals.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:It seems to me that most people regard humanity as a whole as debased, "fallen" as it were (although this may just be a western concept), contoled by self-interest. But they also view individual humans as enlightened, sane and generaly good,
.
Whew! Good to know I don't fit that particular mold. I'm more of an all or nothing guy myself.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I see humanity as essentially heroic, essentially good. I see the human impulses of curiosity and creativity, the human ability to self-control, to be virtues. I think humanity has a lot to be proud of.
I see vice as the exception rather than the rule. As a symptom of some malady rather than the condition to which we are doomed.
I'm optimistic.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
It's kind of sad when you can see the thread title on the front page and know without reading it exactly who posted it and what it's going to be about.
Cue the violins.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Human Nature... isn't that a song by Michael Jackson?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Eaquae, seems to me this thread is legit. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Swampjedi, it would be, if not for the context of Pelegius' drama.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I, on the other hand, view humanity as enlightened, sane and generaly good, but individual humans as weak and petty.
Oddly, I think the reverse. I think that barring extreme circumstances, it is various aspects of society that undermine the underlying sanity and goodness of individual human beans.
EDIT: This is seen in a mob on the scale of The French Revolution or in the playground when a Bully without his gang is diminished and even shy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmm.. I always found individuals to be wonderful, beautiful and amazing people... where as people in a group behaved like a pack of wild dogs tearing up anything weak that they can find.
Of course, there are bad individuals too, but they're *usually* easy enough to push out of your life.
Were you homeschooled, Pel? Did you not go to High School?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Swampjedi, it would be, if not for the context of Pelegius' drama.
I'm sorry, I was making a horrible pun. You may fire when ready. <ties blindfold on, lights cigar>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, weird! The quote function doesn't know about the name change.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
That is weird. I'll ask the webmaster about that.
[Edit -- it looks like if you quote one of her older posts it says starLisa, but if you quote her newer posts it says Lisa. So eventually everything will be relatively normal, I'd think. Still weird. Threads probably need to be reindexed or something.]
[ November 07, 2006, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove:
I'm more of an all or nothing guy myself.
Then you believe that the plays of Shakespeare and the Holocaust have the same root?
I would agree with you in so much as they are rooted in humanity, but no futher than that.
QUOTE]Originally posted by The Pixiest: Hmm.. I always found individuals to be wonderful, beautiful and amazing people... where as people in a group behaved like a pack of wild dogs tearing up anything weak that they can find.
Of course, there are bad individuals too, but they're *usually* easy enough to push out of your life.
Were you homeschooled, Pel? Did you not go to High School? [/QUOTE]
People in groups seek a leader. It is that leader who decides which direction the group moves in, although it is true that he generaly cannot stop them when he wishes to.
And I am still in High School. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I started thinking about this in the context of punishment. If humanity is fallen, why then are we surpised at criminals, and how can we legitimately punish them if all they have done is to be human. We might as well punish the cow for chewing its cud.
As it is doubtless evident, I harbored, at a certain time in my life, an admiration for the fifth-century heretical thinker Pelegius (or Pelagius). To an extent, I still am, and I certainly reject the Augustinian viewpoint that Pelegius rejected. While still accepting the premise that an individual is born with the equal capacity to do good or to do evil, I reject the idea that this is entirely choice.
The natural inclination of the human being is toward goodness. However, pressures placed on us from an early age cause us to stray from the path of goodness.
Those who are familiar with the lives of Hitler and Stalin realize that they both showed signs of mental illness, agrevated by brutal childhoods.
A friend of mine, who is a Calvinist and studying for the priesthood, once explained to me his view of predestination.
I am not a Calvinist and am hardly a Christian, however, I have come to believe that our choices are often not our own in any meaningful sense, but are the products of our Nature (i.e., our genetics) and our Nurture (i.e., our upbringing.)
We do, however, have some free will, and this is what causes our discomfort. We do have choices, more than my previous paragraph might seem to hint at.
The presence of true choice is evidenced by the presence of doubt and the presence of fear. The greater the choice, the greater the doubt and the greater the fear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The presence of true choice is evidenced by the presence of doubt and the presence of fear.
Hm. I could administer certain chemicals to you that would make you feel both doubt and fear. Is this proof of an impending choice?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hey, just dropping in to say I am boycotting this thread because of the deletion of the other thread. Please don't delete your threads just because you don't like what people have to say. I understand why you would be embarassed at some of the content in that thread... but we all already saw it. Just sayin.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I think the presence of true choice is evidenced by the ability defend kicking a puppy on the internet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hey I didn't defend kicking puppies- but I am intrigued by the idea of defending kicking puppies, in principle anyway (and that does not say I am intrigued by puppy kicking- because I aint).
Narrativium- watch your syntax, that sentence could read: "I think the presence of true choice is evidenced by the ability to defend the act of kicking internet puppies. I, by the way, wholeheartedly defend the right of all people to e-kick as many internet puppies as they can find... I bet there are websites that will provide the opportunity?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I actually thought about the wording as I was typing it. I decided to leave it that way, because it was more ambiguous.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm also not going to bother with him when he's just going to delete the thread anyway. Poor little kid has no respect for anyone else. He just wants to whine, and when he gets called on the whining, he deletes the thread. Feh.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Stop kicking puppies, Lisa.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: That is weird. I'll ask the webmaster about that.
[Edit -- it looks like if you quote one of her older posts it says starLisa, but if you quote her newer posts it says Lisa. So eventually everything will be relatively normal, I'd think. Still weird. Threads probably need to be reindexed or something.]
Wow. How cool.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: Stop kicking puppies, Lisa.
Is Geoff tattling again?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:He just wants to whine, and when he gets called on the whining, he deletes the thread. Feh.
I'm not so sure that's the reason. He's been called on it before without deleting threads.
But I'm not sure that one of those threads have ever gone off on a tangent, almost forgetting about Pel compeltely, before. Perhaps Bob is right, and he got upset that people weren't talking about him anymore, but I'm not convinced that that's the reason either.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I feel sure that Bob is right on this one. This threads are big "Look at me!" cries in any case, so it stands to reason that when no one's looking he takes his ball and goes home.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Did Bob say that? I thought that I said it. ::off to look::
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My bad -- I was just going off of what Porter said.
*glares at mph*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Did Bob say that? I thought that I said it. ::off to look::
Oh, golly. There's FIVE of you now?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
No problem. Here's what I said in the other thread. Bob may have said something similar, but if he did I missed it.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I suspect that Pel's chief objection to the thread was the fact that it had ceased to have anything to do with him.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Did Bob say that? I thought that I said it. ::off to look::
Oh, golly. There's FIVE of you now?
We're a hydra.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who's been dumb enough to go around head-lopping?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not sure who he was, but he was wearing some kind of lionskin get-up. He said something about going to get a torch, but we explained to him how that made us grow *three* heads from each stump, so he decided not to bother.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sorry about that, Noemon. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
No problem; being mistaken for Bob is a compliment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
(I'm going to try and seriously discuss this, reguardless of if this is a big look at me! fest for Pel or not)
Individuals are raised in a society where they are tought that this is right and this is wrong. Often you see different cultures clash when meeting because their customs and morals are so different.
Our definitions of right and wrong change drastically as we continue to grow and change as a human race.
But, and this is a big but, no one makes any choices for you. There is only one thing in this whole life that you get to control, and that is your choices. Sure, the understanding that goes into those choices is human and flawed and mostly sculpted by your society, either accepting it or refuting it, but the choice is always there, always individual.
So, are humans, as a group good? No. Are humans, as a group bad? No.
Human beings as a group are just individuals, each choosing to be good or bad as best they understand it.
I believe two things beyond this: 1: Human understanding as a colective of what is right and wrong is growing. 2: Irriguardless of society or upbringing, each individual has the inate ability to know if their actions are good or bad.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Sure, the understanding that goes into those choices is human and flawed and mostly sculpted by your society, either accepting it or refuting it, but the choice is always there, always individual."
A well and often argued view. But what freedom do we have to if our understanding is not free? And is not even the instict to act part of our physiological and emotional buildup?
The answers to the above must surely be yes in most situations. Not all, however.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: A well and often argued view. But what freedom do we have to if our understanding is not free?
Our freedom is that we always have a choice, to believe what we have come to understand or to not believe it.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: And is not even the instinct to act part of our physiological and emotional buildup?
Yep, but I do not see a problem with that. Do you?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
At some point ya gotta just let all that stuff go and relize that life is for the living. You make choices, you make mistakes, you learn from them or not, you either choose to grow wiser or you sit in your little box pretending you know everything and ignoring anything that disagrees with your own personal "truth".
Forget right and wrong, and just think about better. Better than you are now. We as humans will never achieve "right" because everyone is different, is going through different things, sees things differently. But you can impove your life. Make it better, and just let the rest go, 'cause you can't control the rest, just you.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Yep, but I do not see a problem with that. Do you?"
I might if I tried, but I don't see the point in finding fault with the unchangable.
Stone, yes. But, in this thread, I am more interested in the improvement of the species. Man in the collective, as Arendt said, not so much man in the individual.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel, putting your faith in groups is going to get you sorely disappointed. People are never more hateful than they are in a group.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's my whole point! You can not improve "man in the collective" because each and every individual in that collective must decide for themselves what they are going to do or become.
If you truly wish to change the world then you can only put out your ideas. If they are good enough, and revolutionary enough, you will be killed, painfully. After your death, people will finnaly hear your message, and then you will have followers. Much later your message will be twisted into something evil and selfish by the leaders of your follwers, until your point is lost and only the power structure of your followers and the rituals that you never cared about remain. At this point you are long dead and maybe by chance some of your actual message might have accidently been left whole and leaked out, for those with the insight to look for it.
Forget saving the world, save yourself, and be kind and love those around you. You save the world one person at a time, starting with yourself.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I once had this discussion. In my time I've come to this profound! conclusion:
The inherent nature of any person is ignorant. It is our birthright.
-Bok
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Pel, putting your faith in groups is going to get you sorely disappointed. People are never more hateful than they are in a group.
Although that's true, the reverse can also be argued. Groups can be incredibly hateful, but a group of people working together for good can be just the opposite.
On the group/mob/individual issue, I'm at a bit of a loss. One of the best philosophical points I get from OSC's writing is that individuals are defined by the communities and groups they belong to. On the other hand, groups and communities can be defined by the sub-groups and individuals who belong. It doesn't seem right to me to assume one is generally evil and the other is generally good when each one is defined by the other, and each is capable of great good or great evil.
My 1 cent. (I spent the other on a penny-candy)
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
New page! WOOT!!
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
conclusion: