Originally Posted by theburningbush

What is instinct then? We have a name for it therefor we are not subject to it?. What do you think society and all its rules are about suppressing? My cat comes up to me to be petted there is no reason to do this "instinctfully" so apparntly my cat desires to be petted. If my cat has the ability to desire along with many other animals (see Sic's posts above or look to the family dog) how does desire then set us apart?

Originally Posted by Faid

Ok....first of all. Humans dont have instincts...one thing that sets them apart.

Before something is said, instinct does not equal reflex, instinct does not equal conscious decision to do something, i.e. eat, sleep, reproduce(which is a desire, not an instinct)(all in human's case)

Originally Posted by theburningbush

"man is seperate from the animal kingdom" unless they changed the defntion of seperate it is essantial the same comment.

Nietzschean is a totally diffrent subject.

Anyways back to happiness

Happiness is fataly flawed. To know happiness is to also know that the "happy" state must end. Thats kinda depressing no?

Originally Posted by Faid

Ok....first of all. Humans dont have instincts...one thing that sets them apart.

Before something is said, instinct does not equal reflex, instinct does not equal conscious decision to do something, i.e. eat, sleep, reproduce(which is a desire, not an instinct)(all in human's case)

Happiness, apart from what has already been said, has to be emphasized on what kind is looked for, as sic has said. As for "true happiness," our thirst for knowledge, understanding, curiosity, etc. would have have to be sated. I consider myself a pretty happy person, rarely frustrated, easy to please, not in need of much to keep me going, blah, blah...but i will always strive to be a better person, and therefore i can never be completely happy.

also...damn society and its standards....



This just occurs because of the desire to experience something, unexpierenced...

Originally Posted by theburningbush

There are other species that apparently share the knowledge of there eventual demize. Elphants are the first to come to mind.

Originally Posted by theburningbush

What is instinct then? We have a name for it therefor we are not subject to it?. What do you think society and all its rules are about suppressing? My cat comes up to me to be petted there is no reason to do this "instinctfully" so apparntly my cat desires to be petted. If my cat has the ability to desire along with many other animals (see Sic's posts above or look to the family dog) how does desire then set us apart?

Originally Posted by Billy the Kidd

Your cats desire to be petted is a part of its mamilian instinct sets in its middle brain above the R complex. This is why mammels tend to be more social. You dont often see herds of crocadiles swimming together, you dont see swarms of lizards working together to hunt.

Now theyre saying that even Raptors were more bird like than lizard like, and were warm blooded. I wouldnt doubt it, reptiles and cold blooded animals lack the layers of brain mass that mammels have that enables us to work in groups for a common good.

Originally Posted by Billy the Kidd

No its not depressing, because you wouldnt know you were happy if you were terminally happy. being sad or angry or happy all play off one and other. Without 1 the others dont exist anymore. I wouldnt want ot live in a world where everyone was loved and everyone was forever happy, because in that world love and happiness wouldnt be so great anymore theyd just be typical and ordinary.

Originally Posted by theburningbush

actually there are many places where you can find groups of crocidles togther. these groups have a social pecking order but no they dont work togther, although to some degree they take care of there young. Saltwater iguanes and snakes also form massive groups.

interms of land mamals were are arguably the most advanced species but we are not seperate from the animal kingdom.

there was antoher dinaosour, name escapses me, that scientists believed would have developed into us had circumstances been diffrent. they were a little smaller then raptors and there primary food source was small mamals hmmmm.

Originally Posted by theburningbush

theoratically you wouldnt know you were sad either. ignorance is bliss no? but you are making my point happiness is fataly flawed because it is doomed to end. the question you want to ask is, is it better to be in a state of constaint emotional flux or is it better to be in a state of static emotional existence. Your answer is flux based on your post. Its the only answer we have though. Its impossible in my opinion to even conceptulize the alternative. As such the default is what we except.

Originally Posted by Billy the Kidd

I dont believe that, I would like to see some proof for that claim behind crocs.

As for snakes a million baby snakes in a serpent pit doesnt mean they are social, snakes are so stupid they dont even realize that theyre in a group of other snakes.

We arent seperate from the animal kingdom physically, they evolved from it, we are physical beings, we are all part of the same cycle. We arent animals though. We've trancended that when we realized that we exist and figured out how to think.

Originally Posted by theburningbush

crocs = watch animal planet to see them gathered togther. they guard there eggs and carry there young to the water when they hatch as opposed to the sea turtle which lays its eggs and leaves.

snakes: they gather togther in the winter big seething masses of rattle snakes. i never said they were smart of course we may be putting evoulitionary pressure on them to make them smart.

what about the other animlas that do the same thing (see above posts by Sic) have they "trancended" as well? We are animals plain and simple.

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

Wow...lots of responses. Yay! I don't even really know what to add.

Um...to Mikey...hey, long time no see on here. And well, as an absurdist I guess I have to warrant Camus' idea as a truth, but I generally just think it's an interesting idea. But he must've believed in it enough to regard it as truth, after all, he commited suicide.

To Burning Bush...seperate vs' removed...you get my point. And the self is very much an aspect of this conversation. Almost any philosophical debate concerning humanity, especially when considering his station amongst the animal kingdom, most definately calls into question an aspect of the self. Why is it man is so different than animal. And, like Billy was stating, desire in man is different than desire in animals. Both have desire, but when an animal desires to eat, it simply goes on the search for food. When man desires to eat, its search for food is a little more complex. Does it effect diet, what should we eat, where, how expensive is it, did we have pizza last night so let's get hamburger's tonight???

Oh, on another interesting note, they say trees are aware of their own demise...which baffles me actually. But that's what they say. And who are they anyway?



Very interesting. But I just have one question: is it possible, or even conceiveable, that someone out there has never experienced an emotion (not all emotions as a whole, but just one specific emotion)? The answer, I think, would have to be yes. For example: children, who may have never experienced hate or extreme levels of depression, or lust (if lust is an emotion), who have tragically died at a young age. But is their experience worthy of consideration, being that their lack of experience is a huge factor in their lack of emotional states. And as such, does experience and emotional states go hand in hand?

Originally Posted by Billy the Kidd

A mother croc tending her eggs doesnt mean shes a social creature, once the eggs hatch theyre on thier own.

Snakes arent social either, they return to thier nest to breed, thats it usually.

We arent animals, because as I said we trancended that, no other animals have learned to think or rationalize. Therefore theyre still animals, slaves to thier genetically p;assed down data in thier cells and DNA, we are the only species capible of higher thought, and communal thinking. Because of this we are no longer in nature.

I am sorry if that truth goes against what you want to believe, but its the truth anyway.

Essentially your argument is that because we are made form the same stuff as animals and we come from nature like they do we are them. This is not true, you could extend that further and say we are stars too because the molecules and elements in your body that make up your DNA strands were once inside of a star. We arent stars, and we arent animals. We are sentient humans.

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

To Burning Bush...seperate vs' removed...you get my point. And the self is very much an aspect of this conversation. Almost any philosophical debate concerning humanity, especially when considering his station amongst the animal kingdom, most definately calls into question an aspect of the self. Why is it man is so different than animal. And, like Billy was stating, desire in man is different than desire in animals. Both have desire, but when an animal desires to eat, it simply goes on the search for food. When man desires to eat, its search for food is a little more complex. Does it effect diet, what should we eat, where, how expensive is it, did we have pizza last night so let's get hamburger's tonight????