Op 11-apr-97 schreef mitchell wilson:
>Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>>
>> Op 09-apr-97 schreef Lubna Nadvi:
>>
>> >Hi,
>>
>> >I think there might be something to Freud's notion of Eros and Thanatos,
>> >iow's as humans we posess "drives" that make us want to either kill or
>> >preserve life, and it is the institutions of power that mould these drives
>> >into moral acts or categories. The question is, why do we not kill ? Is
>> >it because we have been taught by various institutions since childhood
>> >(ie, religious, educational, parental etc), that we will be punished, if
>> >we do something bad, so theres an element of fear in morality, or is it
>> >because, the Kantian imperative is simply a matter of adhering to a sense
>> >of moral responsibility, based on human dignity, respect etc.
>>
>> >I think that there is an essential human nature, but the only thing that
is
>> >essential and primordial about this nature is its potential to be
>> >constructed into a particular kind of nature. The potential is the basis
>> >for the manipulation. Which raises all sorts of questions
>> >about the human individual. To what degree does s/he have a choice over
>> >who or what s/he becomes. Are the institutions of power etc, all
>> >encompassing.
>>
>> >Your thoughts ....???
>>
>>
>no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary: that our species
>killing one another is natural. so the burden of proof is on you.
>therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
>kill.
i live in holland and a few weeks ago someone was killed in a fight between
supporters of soccer-clubs. what happened was that both groups had arranged a
fight using mobile phones. during the battle one group fled, leaving only one
man, who continued to fight. the amazing thing was that he was beaten to death
by a group in rage. afterwards the men who participated didn't inderstand what
came over them. people who have experienced war have told me that at first
they didn't want to kill anyone, but felt their attitude changed drastically
the moment someone got hurt. our ancesters had to fight in order to survive.
each tribe had to protect itself and aech tribe tried ot maximize the
foodsupplies. if it was succesfull, it made slave of other tribes. this is
still happing today, but the socalled civilized countries have agreed to fight
with money. it's more sufficient and you still make the week tribes ypur
slave. how many people have been starved to death or killed by dangerous work,
you think? how many people died because of tsjernobil? and don't say that
those are accidents, it are calculated risks, and we live in a risk-society,
where people are killed by calculated risks.
>feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
>had taught them not to kill.
>and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
>actualities and drives. let me ask you: have you ever REALLY wanted to
>kill someone? i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
>REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull? i don't believe that you
>have. you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
>as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
>they say. and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
>everyone WANTS to kill. only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. so
>saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
>assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
>kill.
i don't think the discussion becomes clearer if you shift from 'we' to 'me'
(or lubna) maybe i did and i'm a homocidal maniac; maybe i don't and i'm a
reincarnation of a saint, so what? besides: can you garantee to recall every
thought you ever had? how do you know that you didn't wanted to kill anyone
several times, but simply forgot because you wanted to be a pacifist?
>and yes, there is an essential human nature: that which we are engaging
>in right now. let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
>were we to kill one another? or do you simply not believe that humans
>are social creatures? and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
>when something has gone awry? and if killing is part of being social,
>then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape? or
>maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
your argument sounds like: 'of course we're both martians, otherwise we
wouldn't
understand each other!'
if it were our nature to communicate, like it's our nature to breathe, we
would't be able to stop communicating, like we cannot stop breathing. i can
however stop communicating, so it's also my nature to stop communication and
even to be silent or to ly, or to throw a bomb. if the human nature is active,
there's no way it could stop. if it's a hidden ability, everything anyone ever
does
becomes part of human nature and the concept becomes useless, because it
doesn't explain anything anymore (maximal extension = minimal intension)
furthermore, the question of how it becomes active and how it stops will still
be unanswered.
besides i still prefer to think of myself as communicating because i have
something to
say and not because there's an anonymous nature working inside me. (i will not
blame
you if you think otherwise)
>well, i've picked on you for long enough. and i'm looking forward to a
>response.
i was not sure if you wanted my response or lubna's so i send you mine just to
be sure
erikh
>Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>>
>> Op 09-apr-97 schreef Lubna Nadvi:
>>
>> >Hi,
>>
>> >I think there might be something to Freud's notion of Eros and Thanatos,
>> >iow's as humans we posess "drives" that make us want to either kill or
>> >preserve life, and it is the institutions of power that mould these drives
>> >into moral acts or categories. The question is, why do we not kill ? Is
>> >it because we have been taught by various institutions since childhood
>> >(ie, religious, educational, parental etc), that we will be punished, if
>> >we do something bad, so theres an element of fear in morality, or is it
>> >because, the Kantian imperative is simply a matter of adhering to a sense
>> >of moral responsibility, based on human dignity, respect etc.
>>
>> >I think that there is an essential human nature, but the only thing that
is
>> >essential and primordial about this nature is its potential to be
>> >constructed into a particular kind of nature. The potential is the basis
>> >for the manipulation. Which raises all sorts of questions
>> >about the human individual. To what degree does s/he have a choice over
>> >who or what s/he becomes. Are the institutions of power etc, all
>> >encompassing.
>>
>> >Your thoughts ....???
>>
>>
>no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary: that our species
>killing one another is natural. so the burden of proof is on you.
>therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
>kill.
i live in holland and a few weeks ago someone was killed in a fight between
supporters of soccer-clubs. what happened was that both groups had arranged a
fight using mobile phones. during the battle one group fled, leaving only one
man, who continued to fight. the amazing thing was that he was beaten to death
by a group in rage. afterwards the men who participated didn't inderstand what
came over them. people who have experienced war have told me that at first
they didn't want to kill anyone, but felt their attitude changed drastically
the moment someone got hurt. our ancesters had to fight in order to survive.
each tribe had to protect itself and aech tribe tried ot maximize the
foodsupplies. if it was succesfull, it made slave of other tribes. this is
still happing today, but the socalled civilized countries have agreed to fight
with money. it's more sufficient and you still make the week tribes ypur
slave. how many people have been starved to death or killed by dangerous work,
you think? how many people died because of tsjernobil? and don't say that
those are accidents, it are calculated risks, and we live in a risk-society,
where people are killed by calculated risks.
>feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
>had taught them not to kill.
>and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
>actualities and drives. let me ask you: have you ever REALLY wanted to
>kill someone? i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
>REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull? i don't believe that you
>have. you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
>as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
>they say. and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
>everyone WANTS to kill. only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. so
>saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
>assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
>kill.
i don't think the discussion becomes clearer if you shift from 'we' to 'me'
(or lubna) maybe i did and i'm a homocidal maniac; maybe i don't and i'm a
reincarnation of a saint, so what? besides: can you garantee to recall every
thought you ever had? how do you know that you didn't wanted to kill anyone
several times, but simply forgot because you wanted to be a pacifist?
>and yes, there is an essential human nature: that which we are engaging
>in right now. let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
>were we to kill one another? or do you simply not believe that humans
>are social creatures? and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
>when something has gone awry? and if killing is part of being social,
>then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape? or
>maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
your argument sounds like: 'of course we're both martians, otherwise we
wouldn't
understand each other!'
if it were our nature to communicate, like it's our nature to breathe, we
would't be able to stop communicating, like we cannot stop breathing. i can
however stop communicating, so it's also my nature to stop communication and
even to be silent or to ly, or to throw a bomb. if the human nature is active,
there's no way it could stop. if it's a hidden ability, everything anyone ever
does
becomes part of human nature and the concept becomes useless, because it
doesn't explain anything anymore (maximal extension = minimal intension)
furthermore, the question of how it becomes active and how it stops will still
be unanswered.
besides i still prefer to think of myself as communicating because i have
something to
say and not because there's an anonymous nature working inside me. (i will not
blame
you if you think otherwise)
>well, i've picked on you for long enough. and i'm looking forward to a
>response.
i was not sure if you wanted my response or lubna's so i send you mine just to
be sure
erikh