It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fear and Loathing

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Why are we , as a human race , so bothered by our similarity to animals?

Humans were thought to be the only mammals who engaged in the act of sex in what is known as the "missionary" position until it was observed otherwise.
The great apes known as the bonobos also use this posturing.
Why is it so offensive to so many to think about the fact that we are animals?
Carl Sagan once said something quite poetic about the trees; about how humanity's beginnings were in and among them.
That wasn't so long ago in an evolutionary scale.
Are we reluctant to admit this as humans?




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 

What we want is to live forever, and become God. (And in that order, in my opinion...but that's an actual lengthy discussion...Back to topic).
What we find offensive are reminders that we are weak, that we die, that our wills are not omnipotent, that in fact we can hardly develop an effective will that wants the same thing consistently and efficiently for any length of time. Animals are like us in those respects, at least as much weak, changeable, impotent, mortal, failing etc. as we are - some would say more so...another lengthy discussion - so that when we look at animals, they can easily remind us of those unbearable aspects of ourselves...People don't want to be like animals, "because animals ain't nothing"...and the way animals ain't nothing is particularly undesirable because it's that same bad way that we ain't nothing.
I wouldn't call it "denial", in the cheap way people usually use the term...I would call it "dissatisfaction", which I think is frequently a good thing, it's the first step in growth, development, and progress, if you do it right...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I am in no way bothered by the biological similarity. It's frankly too obvious to ignore and in my opinion foolish to deny.

What should "separate" us, or better perhaps, distinguish us is the awareness that allows us to overcome our selfish and destructive impulses. I feel confident is in fact our denial that allows our baser instincts to run rampant. How do you tame the beast without having a handle on it?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Biological similarities are obvious, I`m not sure people really get offended by this, by whose standards do you make that judgement?

The real thing for me is that humans are aware they aware. That`s the partition between human and animal for me.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 

What we want is to live forever, and become God. (And in that order, in my opinion...but that's an actual lengthy discussion...Back to topic).
What we find offensive are reminders that we are weak, that we die, that our wills are not omnipotent, that in fact we can hardly develop an effective will that wants the same thing consistently and efficiently for any length of time. Animals are like us in those respects, at least as much weak, changeable, impotent, mortal, failing etc. as we are - some would say more so...another lengthy discussion - so that when we look at animals, they can easily remind us of those unbearable aspects of ourselves...People don't want to be like animals, "because animals ain't nothing"...and the way animals ain't nothing is particularly undesirable because it's that same bad way that we ain't nothing.
I wouldn't call it "denial", in the cheap way people usually use the term...I would call it "dissatisfaction", which I think is frequently a good thing, it's the first step in growth, development, and progress, if you do it right...


The lack of value ; "animals aint' nothing... in the same bad way as we ain't nothing"

I understand what you mean.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I am in no way bothered by the biological similarity. It's frankly too obvious to ignore and in my opinion foolish to deny.

What should "separate" us, or better perhaps, distinguish us is the awareness that allows us to overcome our selfish and destructive impulses. I feel confident is in fact our denial that allows our baser instincts to run rampant. How do you tame the beast without having a handle on it?


I agree that awareness is the key.
One cannot tame the beast without it.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
To quote "The Island of Doctor Moreau"; "I am NOT AN animal!"
I mean come on, aim higher in your quest for perfection!
What's lower than an animal?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I adore, accept, and am relieved of it.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by psilo simon
Biological similarities are obvious, I`m not sure people really get offended by this, by whose standards do you make that judgement?

The real thing for me is that humans are aware they aware. That`s the partition between human and animal for me.


The unbelievably dramatic reaction that people had to the ideas of both Darwin and Freud.
Ideas that were thousands of years old were being questioned and reversed within a very small period of time in comparison.

What I mentioned about the Bonobos is that it had a very strong effect on the deeply religious who believed , up until the time of this discovery, that humans could be the only ones who could possibly posture in the "missionary" position.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
To quote "The Island of Doctor Moreau"; "I am NOT AN animal!"
I mean come on, aim higher in your quest for perfection!
What's lower than an animal?



Indeed clear skies.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
To quote "The Island of Doctor Moreau"; "I am NOT AN animal!"
I mean come on, aim higher in your quest for perfection!
What's lower than an animal?


If I can invoke an occult idea that one is capable of as much evil as they are good (this can apply to polarity in general), in proportion to the level of power, the only thing potentially lower than an animal is a human animal.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi
I adore, accept, and am relieved of it.


You mean you are comfortable of the fact that you are in an animal's body?
Or that you have resigned yourself?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Being a mineral is lower than being an animal (unless you are some kind of conscious crystalline entity...I'm talking regular dumb mineral).
Animals can do things that minerals cannot (and vice versa, but I vote the infinity of things animals can do is a bigger-class infinity than the infinity of things dumb minerals can do).
From somewhere I recall reading that's the worst ultimate Hell punishment in Scientology is you get your consciousness stuck in a rock some barren place forever and nobody talks to you...which could be taken to show minerals are intuitively worser than animals...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


Minerals, Amethyst, Ruby, Diamond AREN'T as bad as some animals. Sloth, pig.
But they are incapable of feeling, so...............



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


eeek gads, think about a hollywood scientologist!
OF COURSE the worst thing in the world would be being IGNORED!!!!!!
"Look at me!", "Look at me!", "Look at me!"!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Probable because we are doing so many things wrong to animals like tests, caging, poaching, abusing etc. that we try to think of them as lesser and that they have no spirits or emotional being.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


Minerals, Amethyst, Ruby, Diamond AREN'T as bad as some animals. Sloth, pig.
But they are incapable of feeling, so...............


Yeah, and just from everyday usage - people might say "That chicken is as dumb as a rock," whereas, if you said "That rock is as dumb as a chicken,"...it kinda feels like the rock just got a promotion.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Humans have the power of reason. Yes, it is impossible to prove that animals have none, but since Kant, we have distinquished ourselves from animals for this very point.

The offence from the term of ourselves as animals originated from calling people animals for having no power of reason, thought, or mannors. I myslef see no offence being called an animal, but just in general, people do.

The two main differences are our ability to use reason in our ideas (or logic, both terms work alike) and our ability to literate our ideas/logic/reason wth each other (language) animals can not.

So calling a person an animal is saying that the person can not comprehend or act on this abritutes, an insult in the end of the day, that has lasted for many centeries.

I apologies for the very very bad grammer, but if you get what im saying there should be no need for grammer nazi's



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUserz
Probable because we are doing so many things wrong to animals like tests, caging, poaching, abusing etc. that we try to think of them as lesser and that they have no spirits or emotional being.


I see what you mean.
It's a way of justifying what we do to them.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolloks
Humans have the power of reason. Yes, it is impossible to prove that animals have none, but since Kant, we have distinquished ourselves from animals for this very point.

The offence from the term of ourselves as animals originated from calling people animals for having no power of reason, thought, or mannors. I myslef see no offence being called an animal, but just in general, people do.

The two main differences are our ability to use reason in our ideas (or logic, both terms work alike) and our ability to literate our ideas/logic/reason wth each other (language) animals can not.

So calling a person an animal is saying that the person can not comprehend or act on this abritutes, an insult in the end of the day, that has lasted for many centeries.

I apologies for the very very bad grammer, but if you get what im saying there should be no need for grammer nazi's


I totally get what you are saying.
No worries about the grammar.
You just made me think of some things.
Why is it that people use the word for a female dog as an insult?
It's calling someone an animal. It's reducing the female to the level of an animal ; calling her a bitch.

Or calling a guy a jackass. But that's more funny than mean.
Calling someone an a#$hole though, is callling someone a body part. Which is technically pointing out the animal nature.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join