NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a mere hypothesis so I ask you to grant it a degree of leniency with your examination.

Humans are in a constant state of conflict, between the nobility that all civilisation aspires to and the brutish nature of animal instincts (the so called nature vs nurture debate). However due to intrinsic human weaknesses (greed, lust and other such physical concerns), the animalistic side nearly always wins so we simply delude ourselves by attaching noble names to those animal feelings, thus convincing ourselves we are above the animals whereas the opposite is true - we are lower than them because animals do not aspire to self deception in order to appease intelligence

No where is this more true than in the concept of 'love'. Love (in the sense of that emotion we feel for our mating partners) is really nothing more than the transaction of chemicals and various hormones within our bodies which create sexual desire and lust. But we cannot admit that we are little better than the animals, copulating with whatever we so please. So humanity has invented the somewhat alien concept of love to attach noble sentiment to this idea, to appease the intelligent side of an essentially coarse and boorish mind. Love (in the way humanity sees it) does not exist in the animal kingdom where all that is needed is a desire to pass on the genes of one generation. Endearment and attachment does exist in the animal kingdom but yet humanity has covered this under the false label of 'love' - once the lust has died off, we claim that our endearment for one another is also love but it is simply a natural instinct, no more noble than the act of ridding oneself of bodily fluids. Endearment for ones parents and friends has also been called 'love' but is it really? It is probably nothing more than the manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interaction.

Moral standards are yet another human hypocrisy caused by the clash of self interest and the noble sentiments to which civilisation must always aspire. We attach to certain ideas the concepts of 'good' and 'evil but what are good and evil? In most cases they are the clash of two conflicting self interests that inevitably leads to squabbling, much in the same way one monkey would attack another if that monkey tried to steal its food. But the intelligent side of our minds rebels at this base and unattractive concept and as such attaches lables that represent opposite extremes (good and evil). Inevitably, the term "good" simply applies to YOUR self interests whereas the term "evil" is applied to the self interests of the OTHER. In World War One, the Germans were termed as "evil" by the British whereas the British forces were "good". Equally the British were termed as "evil" by the Germans whereas the German forces were "good". But how could both sides be both things? It essentially defies the concept of good and evil and therefore we may conclude that there is no such thing as good and evil, just the conflict of two, contrasting view points that receive justification from society at large.

I agree, though I have many additional reasons for disliking humanity.

http://www.callclareity.com/nar2004/simmons.jpg

Yes. I tend to agree with you also. Especially the part about 'love'.

Heh, yes humanity sucks. We are flawed and the only means that we can ever claim to be better than an ant or a rock is through religious beliefs. We always have served ourselves and the only morality we have is loyalty to our group if we don't choose to put our loyalty to ourselve above that.

[QUOTE=New British Glory]This is a mere hypothesis so I ask you to grant it a degree of leniency with your examination.



'No where is this more true than in the concept of 'love'. Love (in the sense of that emotion we feel for our mating partners) is really nothing more than the transaction of chemicals and various hormones within our bodies which create sexual desire and lust. But we cannot admit that we are little better than the animals, copulating with whatever we so please. So humanity has invented the somewhat alien concept of love to attach noble sentiment to this idea, to appease the intelligent side of an essentially coarse and boorish mind. Love (in the way humanity sees it) does not exist in the animal kingdom where all that is needed is a desire to pass on the genes of one generation. Endearment and attachment does exist in the animal kingdom but yet humanity has covered this under the false label of 'love' - once the lust has died off, we claim that our endearment for one another is also love but it is simply a natural instinct, no more noble than the act of ridding oneself of bodily fluids. Endearment for ones parents and friends has also been called 'love' but is it really? It is probably nothing more than the manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interaction.'
I love my wife and I know the difference between love and lust. I also understand the imperative to procreate. Your 'definition' of love is too narrow. I loved my parents, though there was no biological or evolutionary need. I love my children. I love my pets. I love one or two of my friends. These are all different kinds of love, but love they are. Love is, you're right, a 'chemical' thing but you can't write it off so easily. All human emotions are 'chemical' including anger, resentment, jealousy etc. That is the biological way our minds and bodies work, you can't divorce some emotions from that and not others.

'Moral standards are yet another human hypocrisy caused by the clash of self interest and the noble sentiments to which civilisation must always aspire'
It's not hypocricy, it's the way we have managed to order our societies for the benefit (usually) of us all.

'We attach to certain ideas the concepts of 'good' and 'evil but what are good and evil? In most cases they are the clash of two conflicting self interests that inevitably leads to squabbling, much in the same way one monkey would attack another if that monkey tried to steal its food. But the intelligent side of our minds rebels at this base and unattractive concept and as such attaches lables that represent opposite extremes (good and evil). Inevitably, the term "good" simply applies to YOUR self interests whereas the term "evil" is applied to the self interests of the OTHER. In World War One, the Germans were termed as "evil" by the British whereas the British forces were "good". Equally the British were termed as "evil" by the Germans whereas the German forces were "good"'
There is a lot of truth in that but you're talking about one side appropriating 'good' to justify its deeds. In most cases, the 'baddies' know full well they're commiting immoral acts. WW2 is a better example. Any standard of morality showed the Nazis to be evil and those that fought against tyranny, subjugation, opression and genocide are entitled to view themselves as morally superior.

'therefore we may conclude that there is no such thing as good and evil, just the conflict of two, contrasting view points that receive justification from society at large.'
Well, it's true that the victor writes the history but all of us, from the village idiot to the Queen, know the difference between right and wrong and we call 'wrong' immoral.

You worry too much. Look around you (or smell, listen, touch if you're blind) see what appears to be reality (for want of a better word) and then do whatever you think will give you the most pleasure. If this involves finding someone to have an animal like reproductive activity session with, initiating a chemical reaction called "love" so be it. I think it's fun to try and improve the world I'm in every now and then, but if you don't want to do that, oh well, that's up to you. Sure greed and zenophobia could result in the destruction of the earth, but if it does, that's just too bad. Personally I'd try to stop it, but if I can't, it's no big deal. I mean it's not like the end of the world or anything. More seriously, fear and worry will prevent you from doing anything practical to help.

I think that you are being a bit too cynical. I myself have similar beliefs but with less intensity. Certainly human beings have inherent weakness (greed, lust, etc. as you pointed out), and certainly they tend to overrule moral standards.

However, moral standards still do exist: there is that which brings net benefit (morally good) and that which brings net harm (morally wrong.) And while the majority of romantic love is simple animal instinct, there does exist some deeper meaning.

I would also argue your view on friendship and family:

While loyalty has evolutionary use, in a close friendship or familial relation, there is more than simply, "your presence is convenient," and a degree of, "I would suffer or die to protect you, because you have such value to me."

I dislike humanity, but for entirely different reasons.

I also believe you may be misguided on issues of "love". Having never be :) en in "love", I couldn't tell you exactly what "love" is, but it seems to be more of an emotional attraction and a desire for shared experinces than a simple desire to spread genes.
Can't really prove it, though. :)

As to morality, yeah, you pretty much hit that on the head. It's hard for humanity to get along and we resort to violence FAR too quickly for MY moral tastes.

I dislike many things about humanity too (but I wouldn't say I completely dislike humanity, rather certain flaws in human nature), but I disagree with your statement on 'love'. I spotted two problems.



No where is this more true than in the concept of 'love'. Love (in the sense of that emotion we feel for our mating partners) is really nothing more than the transaction of chemicals and various hormones within our bodies which create sexual desire and lust. But we cannot admit that we are little better than the animals, copulating with whatever we so please. So humanity has invented the somewhat alien concept of love to attach noble sentiment to this idea, to appease the intelligent side of an essentially coarse and boorish mind. Love (in the way humanity sees it) does not exist in the animal kingdom where all that is needed is a desire to pass on the genes of one generation.

Problem 1:
How do you know that humanity invented romantic love itself? Couldn't love be something we naturally developed? Is it not possible that we have evolved to a point where we seek and can feel more for a mate than a nice body?

Endearment for ones parents and friends has also been called 'love' but is it really? It is probably nothing more than the manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interaction.

Problem 2:

You say that love for parents and friends is probably a "manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interaction". But what makes you so sure of this; why do you rule out the other possibilities?

manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interactionYou say this as if it's a bad thing.

There are two main types of human love. Male-female love, which is purely instinctive. Humans tend to want the perfect mate. The qualifications could be anything from looks to intelligence to the eye color of the mate's great-great-great granfather's imaginary friend compared to the number of stars in the nearest galaxy. All animals tend to want the perfect mate. Some have high expectations where the other will mate anything breathing, even if it means being gay.

The other is social love. Humans are social animals. So are wolves and chimpanzees. This type of love is also pure instinct, as groups have better survival rates than those who do things alone. Group hunting allows wolves to take down things several times their size. Humans have a complex social order compared to many animals. We have kings and queens. We have Prime ministers and Presidents. We even have pie and moon bread.

No where is this more true than in the concept of 'love'. Love (in the sense of that emotion we feel for our mating partners) is really nothing more than the transaction of chemicals and various hormones within our bodies which create sexual desire and lust. But we cannot admit that we are little better than the animals, copulating with whatever we so please. So humanity has invented the somewhat alien concept of love to attach noble sentiment to this idea, to appease the intelligent side of an essentially coarse and boorish mind. Love (in the way humanity sees it) does not exist in the animal kingdom where all that is needed is a desire to pass on the genes of one generation. Endearment and attachment does exist in the animal kingdom but yet humanity has covered this under the false label of 'love' - once the lust has died off, we claim that our endearment for one another is also love but it is simply a natural instinct, no more noble than the act of ridding oneself of bodily fluids. Endearment for ones parents and friends has also been called 'love' but is it really? It is probably nothing more than the manifestation of the selfish desire to maintain a close group for personal protection and social interaction.


Actually, there has been studies that indicate that love, attachment, and lust are 3 different parts of human sexuality- that love is the strongest and most potent brand and that although some primates also seem to have this on a minute scale, humans are really the only ones that experience it: and yes, although just chemical reactions... who cares? I love, and i love very strong and frankly all the science and religion and everything means nothing to me if i cant have my girl with me... i dont care the explanation and i dont care to know the chemicals or anything. Id be happy never reading a page on it, because i live and love and thats what i feel so its true.

Yeah there's no such thing as good and evil, yet you imply that the constant state of conflict is evil while love and harmony are good. We're imperfect just like everything else in this world, nothing will ever change that. Even chimps have brutal fights and tribal-type battles over territory, although a few used to believe they were the perfect model of a harmonious society. :sniper:

I just don't like humanity because most people irritate me.

I was talking to this guy in college who was mastering in Phycology or something. I told him how I felt about humanity (Whihch wasn't very good, I'm a person that has no trust in other humans, in fact i don't believe in trust becasue in the END NO ONE is trustworthy), and he told me that I managed to find all the faults of humanity, but didn't look at the positive things. Of course I argued for a while even though I knew he was right. I still don't like other people very much...I have my select few who i hang out with...but I have started to think beter of us has a species or whatever. No, I odn't think I'm better then other people, considering I'm guilty of what everyone else is, but I still don't like people. You often find me saying "this place is crawling with people" with disgust in my voice. I don't know why, but I can't stand people.

Have you read "The Lucifer Principle"? You might enjoy that. It discusses the good/evil arguement and whether evil is intrinsic to mankind.

Which is why an absolute athouritarian rule is neccesary.
Democracy is the rule of those who are below animals.
It is easy to guide the wnats of an animal - and even easier to manipulate those of a lesser creature. Why should lesser creatures even have a say in thier fate?

Ah, the joys of despotism...

If animals do not experience love, then why do many of them stick with the same mate for life?
Parrots become very sad, and often pick their own feathers out, if their mate dies.

Which is why an absolute athouritarian rule is neccesary.
Democracy is the rule of those who are below animals.
It is easy to guide the wnats of an animal - and even easier to manipulate those of a lesser creature. Why should lesser creatures even have a say in thier fate?

Ah, the joys of despotism...


I've tried to bring this up in school many times. Expecially when the teachers give us lectures around election time. And everytime I say my piece....and we argue....the teacher runs out of things to say. The overall ending....me sitting in detention....

Let me get this straight, you defy your teachers, and yet you believe in authoritarian rule? Can you see why I find this funny?

Which is why an absolute athouritarian rule is neccesary.
Democracy is the rule of those who are below animals.
It is easy to guide the wnats of an animal - and even easier to manipulate those of a lesser creature. Why should lesser creatures even have a say in thier fate?

Ah, the joys of despotism...

If we're all below animals, why would it be better to have one of us rule all of us? Or are you proposing making a dog or some other animal the supreme ruler of earth?

Anyway, thinking civilization has to be especially "noble" seems silly to me. We're flock creatures with complex thought and communication, we create civilizations. Why enter nobleness into the equation?

And why dislike delusion, selfishness, hypocrisy and abstract ideas like good or evil so? It is a part of human kind just as much as arms and legs are. Perhaps even more so, because one can lose both arms and both legs and still be human. Just accept that you are what you are. Asking for more is unreasonable and futile.

I've known a lot of people who didn't believe that love existed. It was sad, because then one day they'd actually experience love, but to be consistent they denied it and caused all sorts of pain to themselves and their girlfriends or boyfriends. Most of them have since changed their minds.

I can tell you that I know what love isn't. I've felt the vacuous expanses of depression, that infinite abyss that sucks the life out of you and leaves you shallow as a stream. And since I've felt the absence of love, I know then that it must exist, because how would I know what it wasn't unless I knew what it was?

My guess is that you don't know how warm the air around you is until the cold winds blow. So in a way it consoles me to see so many people who don't understand love. Perhaps that means times are good.

I just hate you from all that is in my heart

That and I think everyone is self-centered and a materialistic fool. Except all of you. But I still have light hatred for you.

I would propose that all of mankind be ruled by an uncaring computer.
Devoid of the temptations of the flesh - and without greed or ambition.
We shall call it "The all seeing eye".


Unless one man would be able to prove himself somehow greater than the slime he is genetically inclined to be, which is not likely.

I would propose that all of mankind be ruled by an uncaring computer.
Devoid of the temptations of the flesh - and without greed or ambition.
We shall call it "The all seeing eye".


Unless one man would be able to prove himself somehow greater than the slime he is genetically inclined to be, which is not likely.


While some kind of godlike AI super computer would be a very efficent at controlling every area of human existence why would it care about human beings? It is not a human being and would lack the dependence that we have on our environment for survival and happiness (possibly with the exception of energy consumption) thus it would not be held accountable for what it does. Just like when you step on an ant, it doesn't even phase you because that ant is so insigificant you don't have any evolutionary need to feel compasion for that ant.

Have you read "The Lucifer Principle"? You might enjoy that. It discusses the good/evil arguement and whether evil is intrinsic to mankind.

You make the presumption that evil and good exist. They do not. These are lables (humanity thrives on dogmatic labels) that individuals attach to their own selfish interests in order to justify them to our conscience.

Heh, yes humanity sucks. We are flawed and the only means that we can ever claim to be better than an ant or a rock is through religious beliefs. We always have served ourselves and the only morality we have is loyalty to our group if we don't choose to put our loyalty to ourselve above that.

Sorry. That doesn't work either. Social Animals have an instinctual means by which to recognize packmates and an inherent aggresivness to strangers.

Religous belief is simply a manifestation of this instinct which results in things like Crusades, Jyhads, and God Hates Fags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com/). There may actually be some legitimate belief in spiritual beings, but that's not religion. That's what it means when people say they're not religious, they're spiritual. They mean that if you advocate a particular religion you're full of crap.

You make the presumption that evil and good exist. They do not. These are lables (humanity thrives on dogmatic labels) that individuals attach to their own selfish interests in order to justify them to our conscience.

Just because people attach lables to things innappropriatly doesn't mean that they don't exist. Courage exists as does cowardice. People called the 9/11 attacks cowardly. Sacrificing your life for what you believe isn't cowardice, no matter what else is wrong with it.

By the same token, evil may or may not exist, but the fact that people invoke them without legitimacy doesn't mean that they don't exist anymore than it means that Thomas Jefferson didn't exist because both athiests and thiests invoke him to bolster their arguments.

We're all very misanthropic today then, aren't we?

Humans fall on the wrong side of the animal/human barrier too many times. Rigid denial of animalism in all its forms is the only way ahead.

Love is pure instinct, whether it be for reproduction or life in a group, sorta like packs, with people instead of cute little wolves. :p Humans love because they are programmed to. It isalso one of the most powerful and primitive emotions around. We love like our animal neighbors do. The problem is, we tend to love ourselves too much. We neglect the planet in which our lives depend on. We give rights only to those we deem worthy. Of course, the number of those with rights has increased significantly. You used to have to be a white male to have rights. Then it went to male. Then it went to being human. Now we give rights to people as if they were hotcakes in watermelons. But then, what do I know? Maybe humans are the only ones with love. Maybe I'm just some asshole who thinks that we shouldn't neglect things that aren't us.

If I had a dollar, yen, pound or other form of money for everytime I heard someone say "...Love is just chemicals...humans are savage animals...they have no worth..." I would be richer than Bill Gates. Misanthropism is not cutting-edge or groundbreaking.

I would propose that all of mankind be ruled by an uncaring computer.
Devoid of the temptations of the flesh - and without greed or ambition.
We shall call it "The all seeing eye".


Unless one man would be able to prove himself somehow greater than the slime he is genetically inclined to be, which is not likely.

Oh, people prove themselves to be superior to the rank and file all the time. They usually get murdered for their trouble. We much prefer to be ruled by people who are our inferiors in everyway, but are unapologetic for their inferiority. That's why people trust Dubya. Anyone that dumb couldn't possibly be hiding anything from you and anyone that evil must have simple ambitions and motivations.

Also, we have so little understanding for enything unhuman that we would have no idea what an animal would want. Plus, a wolf would ban guns and force everyone into submission.

http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/

watch it and discuss.