# Our animal natures



## maxiogee

From a thread now closed regarding bullfighting, I asked



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> What is so noble about not treating animals in the same way as every other animal they share the earth with treats them - either ignoring them or eating them? Are we too not animals placed on this earth to survive as best we can?


 


			
				ana raquel said:
			
		

> We can transcend our animalistic side.





			
				ana raquel said:
			
		

> The rest of animals can't.
> Significant difference, I guess.


I hope Ana Raquel won't mind if I modify her words to "our animal natures" as, since we are animals, we only have an animalistic side.
We have, to be sure, human elements to our 'side' - just as dogs, in relation to other animals, have canine elements to their 'side'.

So, my question is, should we try to transcend what nature we have when born?

I need to outline a few simple assumptions - which people are free to argue with, of course, but I'd ask that you not divert the thread from its on-topicness too soon.

I believe that life on earth probably arose by chance.
I believe that human life probably developed by chance.
However
I believe that the universe was not created by chance.
I wouldn't dare to even try to understand the mind of the creator of the universe, but that creator may well have designed the universe knowing that life would arise somewhere within it, and that human life (or what might be called in our supremely arrogant way "Higher Life") would evolve from the processes which were initiated by the act of creation.

Our human activities to date show us to be flawed creations.

It is nowhere evident to me that the creator takes any notice of our activities here. We impute all sorts of human concepts to our human concepts of God - traits such as justice, goodness, love, etc. These things are not overwhelmingly evident to me. I see natural disasters strike "innocent" people, I see infants die of natural causes, I see extinctions of species, I see 'evil' people prosper and remain unsmitten, whilst the 'good' seem to be smitten by life over and over again.

So now that I've laid out my table of assumptions..... we are here on earth. How we got here might be argued, the existence of God is not proven - even by the multitude of "scriptures" which religions cite as 'divinely inspired' - they were actually written by human hands.... so here's my question....

*Assuming that one believes that we were created as the flawed animals we are, ought we try to transcend our (animal) natures?
*
(I hereby acknowledge that I'm opening a can of worms here and do so of my own free will, and being of semi-sound mind. I will also take whatever comes my way. I may wait some time before responding to this, to see how the general thinking is going.)


----------



## fenixpollo

So, you're asking whether humans should exercise all of the faculties given [sic] to us? 

Are you suggesting that it is possible/desirable to turn off or disengage that part of us that is able to suppress animal urges and instincts within us?


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that it is possible/desirable to turn off or disengage that part of us that is able to supress animal urges and instincts within us?



Is this a minor 'oooops'?  The double negative has me perplexed... disengage, or engage....that part that is able to su*p*press....???


I believe your are _asking about_ our ability to turn the suppression to the on position.

Please confirm.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

Whether one shares the underlying assumptions or not, the question remains as stated:



> *should we try to transcend what nature we have when born?*


My own answer is a partial yes. Much of human social behavior involves suppressing, to greater or lesser extent, some of our instincts. We don't generally kill to get what we want; we respect the notion of owned property...certainly not
an instinct given us by nature.

Where things go into a cacaphony of different people yelling and caterwauling about what is 'right' and 'moral' and 'good' is 
anything beyond the basic notions of not killing, not committing incest, not stealing.

Because human kind has lots of bases for deciding what is good, right, moral, etc., some people are quite comfortable with the killing of animals, or the ritual sacrifice of animals, while other people are horrified by the 'cruelty' of an animal wounded by a humanoid, yet do not protest the 'cruelty' of one animal wounded by another, non-human animal that wants to eat the first animal.

I see no problem with anyone hunting or fishing for their own, or their community's, food. I don't agree with hunting or fishing just for sport or amusement. These preferences reflect my personal notions of 'right, good, moral'. I do not believe I have any right to try to impose these personal preferences on anyone who has a different posture or understanding of "right, good, moral", whether that posture is based on culture, religion, indifference to or freedom from religion, or even strictly personal cussedness. 

I believe that religious proselytizing is a form of torture, and I'm gratified that most of humankind does not practice it.  
The minority who choose to impart, forcefully, their 'truth' to those who have a different 'truth' more than make up for the non-proselytizers in terms of volume, arrogance, and nuisance value.

Please note that putting an idea on offer is not at all the same as going around braying that there is one and only one 'right' way to see things. I don't call the former proselytizing; rather, it is a form of sharing. It's somewhat akin to offering someone a meal composed of something they may not be accustomed to consuming. A good host extends the hospitality, without the expectation that the offer will be willingly accepted. The good host is not offended by a refusal, nor does he or she hector the guest in an effort to force the 'gift' down the guest's throat. 

I present these personal opinions in the spirit of hospitable offering. If you don't care for them, please feel totally at ease in rejecting them.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So, you're asking whether humans should exercise all of the faculties given [sic] to us?
> [/size]
> 
> In a way yes,
> 
> I could kill my next-door neighbour
> I could steal all his property
> I could feck off and live on an island and isolate myself from the rest of the world
> 
> but I don't exercise those faculties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that it is possible/desirable to turn off or disengage that part of us that is able to supress animal urges and instincts within us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I would politely object to your use of "animal urges and instincts" - _all_ our urges and instincts are _animal_ by our very being.
> Secondly, I am not suggesting anything, I am asking.
> Thirdly, I do not know what it is possible for us to do.
> Fourthy, I'm not asking if it is desirable.
> I asked *ought we try*?
> 
> I think I spelt out my question in plenty of detail. No more clues!
Click to expand...


----------



## Ana Raquel

_Maxiogee in black, Ana Raquel in blue:_

I hope Ana Raquel won't mind if I modify her words to "our animal natures" I don't mind 

as, since we are animals, we only have an animalistic side.
we have also logical, intellectual, artistic, spiritual, creative sides (or functions or faculties, choose the word you like the most)


We have, to be sure, human elements to our 'side' - just as dogs, in relation to other animals, have canine elements to their 'side'.
yes, our animal element is intrinsic and neccesary so that we can move, perceive, sense, feel, like, dislike, etc. These elements are not to be suppressed (cuchuflete, please, note) but to direct them properly so that we can awake, develop and cultivate our higuest 'side'

So, my question is, should we try to transcend what nature we have when born?
It is not compulsory, we just can follow the animal in us but we are able to direct it and reach a tranquil state that will allow us to take the best decisions.


... even by the multitude of "scriptures" which religions cite as 'divinely inspired' - they were actually written by human hands
it can't be in any other way, every book has been writen by humans. We can gain info, guidance, etc, from them and we can follow this guidance once we have verified their possible lessons. What remain being miracles and stories (not proven) will continue being fantasies, something really danguerous to follow.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Cuchu, you said "I present these personal opinions in the spirit of hospital offering".

If you're offering me hospital food, I here and now reject it outright and take grave and immediate offence.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Is this a minor 'oooops'? The double negative has me perplexed... disengage, or engage....that part that is able to su*p*press....???
> 
> 
> I believe your are _asking about_ our ability to turn the suppression to the on position.


 Sorry I didn't explain myself well.  I was saying that max said that we have the ability to suppress our animal nature, and then max asked if we should do that.  I was asking, mostly rhetorically, if it is possible NOT to suppress our animal nature.  We have the ability to, why would we not?


----------



## cuchuflete

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Cuchu, you said "I present these personal opinions in the spirit of hospital offering".
> 
> If you're offering me hospital food, I here and now reject it outright and take it to the grave and with immediate offal.


¡Ayyyyy Hija! You've discovered my animal instinct to type quickly and badly. Thanks. I couldn't persuade you that it was an elliptical reference to an animal hospital, could I?


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I could kill my next-door neighbour
> I could steal all his property
> I could feck off and live on an island and isolate myself from the rest of the world
> 
> but I don't exercise those faculties.


As long as you're happy with your choice not to do so, bully for you.


			
				max said:
			
		

> Firstly, I would politely object to your use of "animal urges and instincts" - _all_ our urges and instincts are _animal_ by our very being.


 You were the one who phrased it this way:





			
				max said:
			
		

> *Assuming that one believes that we were created as the flawed animals we are, ought we try to transcend our (animal) natures?*


 I just went along with your verbiage.  Our ability to "transcend" our (animal) natures is also part of the human animal, just as are our urges and instincts. 





			
				max said:
			
		

> I think I spelt out my question in plenty of detail. No more clues!


 You obviously have an ulterior motive in presenting your ideas in the way that you did, and with so many references to God, that it seems pointless to continue debating your question until you give up on giving "clues" and just say what you mean, already.


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:
			
		

> * ought we try to transcend our (animal) natures?
> *


I'm not sure I've perfectly understood the question.
I think we do all the time. Whether we want it or not we have no choice but doing it. We can't help silencing our instincts for the best and the worst. Think of the addicted gambler who's capable of refraining from eating for days just to spend all his/her money on his/her passion : what's left of our animal natures in such a behaviour?


----------



## timpeac

Maxiogee - your thread here is perplexing to me.

You ask *ought we try to transcend our (animal) natures?*

and then go on to berate anyone for suggesting that anything we can do is not animal

*I would politely object to your use of "animal urges and instincts" - all our urges and instincts are animal by our very being.*

If all our urges and instincts are animal by our very being then ipso facto it is impossible for us to transcend these.

It seems to me that you are asking a question here with the intent to jump on anyone who answers it.

I agree with Fenixpollo. You obviously have an ulterior motive in your question - what is it?


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max*
> _Firstly, I would politely object to your use of "animal urges and instincts" - all our urges and instincts are animal by our very being.
> _
> 
> You were the one who phrased it this way:



Actually I wasn't. I was using ana raquel's words, and I put the word animal in brackets.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *max*
> _I think I spelt out my question in plenty of detail. No more clues!  _
> 
> You obviously have an ulterior motive in presenting your ideas in the way that you did, and with so many references to God, that it seems pointless to continue debating your question until you give up on giving "clues" and just say what you mean, already



My references to God were there purely to try to be as inclusive as possible and to allow for those who believe in a God, and for those who don't, to become involved.
My own belief in a God is not one based on any scriptures, nor do I think that this God acts in human affairs. That is why I was being as careful as I could be to couch the question in as broad a way as possible.
I was trying to avoid (unsuccessfully, obviously) bringing the question around to a discussion of the nature of anyone's God.

To answer my own question, I do not believe that we can transcend our natures. Maybe we are not presently achieving all that our nature would allow us to, or (as we keep hearing of how little of our brains we actually use) we are not performing to our full nature. I do not know. But if a horse cannot stop being a horse, so too I would argue that a human cannot stop being a human - and that 'being a human' is 'being an animal'.
The idea that we can 'transcend' a part of our nature - which is what I read into ana raquel's comment implies that we are better than the animals (witness how many derogatory terms for what we consider to be ignoble in humans refer to animals), and yet it would appear that we are descended from them - if we went back to meet all our progenitors, successively from one mother back to hers, we would eventually arrive at what we nowadays term an animal and would not recognise any humanity in her.


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Actually I wasn't. I was using ana raquel's words, and I put the word animal in brackets.


 
eh?

well, to clarify a bit in case this is being confusing:


*maxiogee said this*:
Quote:
Originally Posted by *maxiogee*
_What is so noble about not treating animals in the same way as every other animal they share the earth with treats them - either ignoring them or eating them? Are we too not animals placed on this earth to survive as best we can?_

*and I replied this:*
We can transcend our animalistic side. 
The rest of animals can't.
Significant difference, I guess


----------



## annettehola

The question is:"*Assuming that one believes that we were created as the flawed animals we are, ought we try to transcend our (animal) natures"*

My answer is a yes and a no. 

Yes: 1) "The fittest will survive" is both totally true and should be controlled. If "the fittest will survive" means that killing other men to get to your goal and rape their wives and daughters underway is allowed, then I object.

2) Stealing is a concept we have because we have another concept:"Private property." A concept that came about with Christianity - at least in the part of the world where I come from. If we like "private property," then, we should presumably stick to the idea that stealing is to be forbidden. But I don't think animals steal. The squirrel will take an egg from a bird at times to eat it, not to collect them for future wealth. There are no banks in the animal world. Animals live here and now. Or else they die here and now. 

No: It is my opinion that we, homo sapiens, - what a glorious name we gave ourselves, there! - have gone astray. We live no longer in accordance with the nature we originally came from. Both inner and outer. We smear everything in thick moral sauces to justify what we should and should not do. I don't like that. Animals have no morals. They have existence and feel pleasure and not. They have instincts. So do we, for we too are animals, but I think we have forgotten them. I think it is necessary to cast away the heavy armour of Morals and this-you-cannot- do-because-I-say-so-or-god-says-so-or-whoever-says-so. It is crap to kill our natural instincts with morals that are not natural. And it is also crap to be slaves of our instincts and never think. Balance!

Sex is one of the strongest natural instincts in men. It has NEVER been shameful. EVER. But with the Church and Christianity it became so. It is so. Before the Christian Crusades that started with the Franks, no one in Denmark where I come from, considered sex a shameful act in any sense whatsoever. People lived off of agriculture and to please the god of Fertility, Freyr, the men would masturbate into the soil each year in the hope of a better harvest. Their religion was nature. Nature is not a lovely church with four walls and a suffering bloke on a cross. It is fight, instinct and respect for what there is, inside and outside. It is also survival, so, sure, it is bloody as well. And it's a lot more. A lot. But there is one thing that it is not: Morals.

Annette


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The idea that we can 'transcend' a part of our nature - which is what I read into ana raquel's comment implies that we are better than the animals (witness how many derogatory terms for what we consider to be ignoble in humans refer to animals)


 
The use of the word "animal" to refer to some of our functions is symbolic, nothing pejorative towards them  

Actually, the word "animal", etymologically implies soul, breath, movement (animation) alive, energy, living being, mind, disposition passion, courage, anger, spirit, feeling.

Please check "animal" and "animus" at etymonline.


----------



## annettehola

"The use of the word "animal" to refer to some of our functions is symbolic, nothing pejorative (= derogative) towards them" 

Are you not an animal yourself; then, Ana?

Animalette


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Maybe we are not presently achieving all that our nature would allow us to, or (as we keep hearing of how little of our brains we actually use) we are not performing to our full nature


 
That's the point!

To achieve that, we need to be aware of our potentials, to awake them, to cultivate them. 

Hard work.


----------



## annettehola

"That's the point!"

Which one of them are you referring to? There are two here. I believe the latter is of the most importance: We are not performing to our full nature. 

What is called "full nature" here should be defined. It seems Maxi is speaking about the full brain capacity. I can agree that man is not using his/ her brain enough. But I disagree that man's full nature is his/her brain only. That would be a gross simplification to count out instincts, physical senses, bodily functions and all that go with being a whole human being. I maintain we are animals. Because we do the same as other animals do on a very basic scale: We eat, we sleep, we engage in sex, we dispose of food and drink consumed and digested. I think, that those that will not admit they are animals will not admit their own body. That's absurd. What more do we share with other animals? Feelings, of course. We all feel pleasure and its opposite. The human (?????!!!!!) animal has decided to divide pleasure into more subgroups and one is called "love" and another is "affection" and yet another is "eros" and "agape" and all that. But sorry, this is mere speculation, nothing more. Humans speculate. Animals are more inclined to follow the spur of the moment, I believe. And this is perhaps a part of instinct, this urge. But that is not to say animals different from "us" don't think! They are just silent in their ways. And they don't laugh, but they do smile.

We need to talk about what "full human/ animal nature" might be.

Annette


----------



## maxiogee

As no-one else seems to be biting I'll move on to part two of my question.

If we are meant to transcend our (animal) natures, should we use genetic engineering to do this?


----------



## fenixpollo

I'm not seeing that anyone is necessarily agreeing with your definition of terms ("animal" and "nature") enough to be able to debate the use of genetic engineering in this way.  (Correct me if I under-skimmed the other posts.)


----------



## moodywop

The way I see it we can't transcend our "animal nature". It's there, it's part of what we are. Except that compared to other animals we have built on top of it - call it culture or whatever you like. But the point is that the two - nature and culture - are inextricably mixed in humans.

I would also add that although "animal instincts" conjures up images of violence and brutal "survival of the fittest" a mother's nurturing instinct towards her offspring is also part of our "animal nature" inheritance.

I think that genetic engineering may one day help with some diseases but - luckily - it will never be able to tinker with our inherent duality.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree with your initial assumptions, *Maxiogee*. Namely, I do not see 'traits such as justice, goodness, love, etc.' as 'concepts of God'.
> To me, they are also human concepts, perhaps mostly so. The equations God=moral, human=amoral make up a false ditchotomy, IMHO.



Outsider, if I held those views you'd be entitled to disagree with me. But what I actually posted was 


> "We impute all sorts of human concepts to our human concepts of God - traits such as justice, goodness, love, etc."


In am saying that 'our' gods are human constructs which we have imbued with what we see as best in us..


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> In am saying that 'our' gods are human constructs which we have imbued with what we see as best in us..


Assuming that's true, what does it have to do with 'animal natures'? I don't see a connection.

Sorry about having deleted my post, but the way your question was worded made me think I'd misunderstood it.


----------



## maxiogee

If a God-as-worshipped gave us our embodiment are we right to try to transcend our natures (the divinely given and restricted ones)

It would appear that at present a horse can aspire (if it aspires to anything) to nothing more than horseness for its offspring for generations to come.

Man has brought ourselves to a point where we could probably breed out parts of our natures we currently find unwanted/immoral/unproductive.
We could probably breed outselves into the dis-corporated brains of low-budget science fiction movies. Or, we could breed out our legs as unnecessary adjuncts no longer needed for perambulation as we become more and more sedentary, and design chairs and vehicles to do this. We are reaching stages in AI that will raise questions soon enough, and one of those is going to be 'crossing' an AI with a human, I'm sure.

My question was prompted by mention of our "animal nature" as something which could be transcended. I say we only have one nature, and as we are animals, then these are animal natures.

Whether our natures are god-given (be it a 'received' religious God, or a totally disinterested in the experiment type of God which set off our big-bang knowing certain things would happen and has never looked in on us again, whould we try to overcome our perceived 'natures'?


----------



## Ana Raquel

*Maxiogee wrote: *_To answer my own question, I do not believe that we can transcend our natures._

If reasoning is nor applied to our animal part; sensory body, instincts, perceptions, emotions, desires, sensations, this part determines our behaviour and the kind of life we have.

The intellectual part, the reason directs the animal functions through the will, I mean, we decide free from the pushes of the sensations or feelings, that's the will. Now, we can ignore the emotional, go beyond it, (transcend) and choose an action or decision determined by reason and we will see the effect in our life.

Simple example:
-the animal in my self: I see a sacher (external influence, image that strenghs the desire that follows) I feel the taste and desire to eat a portion (or two)
-the reason in me: it is not healthy for me
-the will: I decide to not eat it = I ignore the desire, I am free from it, reason won
-I succumb: the animal won ...but yummy! 
-The effect: headache 

I ate it even knowing I would get a headache = not transceded anything, the impulse determined the behaviour and the bad evening time (my life)

Imagine a example about drugs or about power in corrupt politicians, or in children abuse, or ...whatever


----------



## cyanista

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I say we only have one nature, and as we are animals, then these are animal natures.


If I understand you rightly, you postulate that every human characteristic and ability is actually animal as we are only a product of natural selection.

How far are you willing to take it? According to your argument, the human ability to reason is also part of our animal nature. Are our abilities to create art, communicate in written form or, for that part, breed other animals for our own purposes also products of our animal nature? 

Wouldn't it be too simplistic to say so?


----------

