Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

humanity?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am the thinker, so yes, a thinker is needed in order to think.
    This is too complicated, I can't keep up!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I am the thinker, so yes, a thinker is needed in order to think.
    This is too complicated, I can't keep up!

    How do you know you are the thinker...
    And why is a thinker needed? Say there are only thoughts. But those thoughts are deluded and imagining this whole world and the people in it think THEY are thinking the thoughts?
    When there are only thoughts. No thinker... just thoughts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    So a single human being cannot demonstrate humanity?

    I take the point, but surely something like humanity is equivocal by definition. It depends on the individual and their interaction with the wider world.
    A single human can demonstrate qualities of 'humanity', but what are these qualities that single us out in the first place?

    You could argue that humanity is entirely interpersonal and unique to our own experiences, that it is in our head and doesn't exist at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You could, but I'd probably accuse you of being a pretentious arse if you did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    You could, but I'd probably accuse you of being a pretentious arse if you did.
    Why? If it's my opinion...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why can't your opinion show you up to be a pretentious arse? Surely, that's my opinion...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    You say they cannot exist on their own. This is not true, they quite well could. You are claiming "I" of an unkown quantity. They may only be one being in existence, having al the thoughts that exist at once. It is not "I", as it is not exclusivley "you". Indeed, there doesn't even need to be a being.

    Who are you to claim thoughts cannot exist independantly? Even sicentists do not know this - we don't know what thoughts are, let alone wether they even exist at all. None-one has to be thinking. It can just be the very process of thought alone.

    Think about it for a while. Is a thinker needed?

    /Leaves before he gets hurt for awful joke.

    you're arguing an idealist position, which is an odd thing for a communist to argue
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Blagsta wrote:
    you're arguing an idealist position, which is an odd thing for a communist to argue

    I didn't say I agreed with it? I could argue Hitler's position if I chose. Or Stalin's. Or George Bush.

    I am just being a cunt and pointing out flaws in others arguments. I also incredibly hate Descartes, and jump on any chance to destroy his flawed and poorley thought through argument where he set out only to prove God exists. He also ruined any debate over mind in future with his stupid legacy which too many tossers accepted.

    He angers me greatly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I think therefore I am is a flawed statement.

    You can only claim "I think therefore there are thoughts."
    i think ...therefore i am ...i think.

    maybe a bit closer?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What Descartes meant by Cogito Ergo Sum was that we know we exist because we can think about existing.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Blagsta wrote:
    What Descartes meant by Cogito Ergo Sum was that we know we exist because we can think about existing.
    Which isn't exactally true sadly.

    However... doubting we exist is a pointless exercise.

    And as for thinking and thoughts... It is doubtful we'll ever know

    As for Humanity... what makes us human... well, I'd say, our ability to adapt and evolve, and use the environment in a different way to other creates. They live in Harmony with it. We live off of it. Unless you are an Aborigine or a Native American, or various other tribal people who did. We exterminated nearly all of them though.

    Humans... as that film The Matrix said... we are live a Virus on earth. Unlike other creates... except the Viri that live off of us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Having a sense of family, community, empathy, sharing with others, breathing, knowing that life is fragile and should be lived to the max.

    I think I agree.

    I would say our capacity for compassion, kindness, empathy, regret, personal hatred and many other qualities go toward making us "human" by definition and "humane" by nature.

    Not to say that everyone possesses those qualities in abundance [or at all?], but as a human being - rather than, for example a toad - they have the propensity to have them, to feel those things. I think it is essentially the ability to live in ways other than those that your basic instincts and nature would have you; but everyone will obviously think differently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't thate exclude a lot of people?

    Yes...hence the term "restores my faith in humanity"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why can't your opinion show you up to be a pretentious arse? Surely, that's my opinion...
    I don't see how it shows me to be a 'pretentious arse', please do explain as it's only an opinion and not worthy of an attack.

    That isn't my opinion... I do hope you're not making a personal jab or insulting me, this is politics and debate, not 'politics and arguements' as it often gets.

    I was arguing more on how Turlough's idea couldn't be implied universally, partly because of cultural differences and also because for example, individuals with some autistic spectrum disorders cannot empathise. So, by Turlough's model, I argued that if we look for certain characteristics in individuals and values that make people 'human' or a part of 'humanity', we will always be excluding somebody and dehumanising them. Also, you cannot measure a lot of factors such as 'empathy'or 'sense of community'.

    I'm a believer that a human being is a human being, as I've said before simply because of DNA. We cannot know whether other animals have awareness because we are not them. We do not know if they feel emotion or anything more profound than the drive to reproduce and eat... But then we have evolutionary psychology which would put us very much alongside animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We cannot know whether other animals have awareness because we are not them. We do not know if they feel emotion or anything more profound than the drive to reproduce and eat... But then we have evolutionary psychology which would put us very much alongside animals.

    Yes we can, you can manually test them to see how they react in certain situations and also scan their brain to see what's going on. And what I said is true, sure there may be the odd exception here and there but what I said is pretty much universally true, without the things I said, what would we be? Nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see how it shows me to be a 'pretentious arse', please do explain as it's only an opinion and not worthy of an attack.

    That isn't my opinion... I do hope you're not making a personal jab or insulting me, this is politics and debate, not 'politics and arguements' as it often gets.
    I'm not attacking you personally, and I think you misunderstand what constitutes an argument.

    Anyway, if you're saying that humanity is "all in the mind" then I think you're being a pretentious arse. It's a bit like saying global poverty is all in the mind and it makes the discussion rather pointless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I'm not attacking you personally, and I think you misunderstand what constitutes an argument.

    Anyway, if you're saying that humanity is "all in the mind" then I think you're being a pretentious arse. It's a bit like saying global poverty is all in the mind and it makes the discussion rather pointless.
    Calling somebody a "pretentious arse" is insulting them, debate does not involve insulting. The reason why a lot of people don't post on these boards is because of the insults that get thrown around by people who sometimes seem to act like playground bullies (not aimed a you, but anybody who stoops to the level of personal attacks and insults)... Just my opinion.

    An argument is a dispute or quarrel, a quarrel is an angry dispute yadda yadda... On these boards a lot of people do end up getting hostile towards each other.

    On the topic of humanity... You can measure poverty, but you cannot measure absolute morality, nor can you measure what makes somebody human other than what we have biologically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Yes we can, you can manually test them to see how they react in certain situations and also scan their brain to see what's going on. And what I said is true, sure there may be the odd exception here and there but what I said is pretty much universally true, without the things I said, what would we be? Nothing.
    So somebody with mental retardation who does not match your criteria is an animal and not human then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calling somebody a "pretentious arse" is insulting them
    I didn't actually call you a pretentious arse but never mind ,eh.
    An argument is a dispute or quarrel, a quarrel is an angry dispute yadda yadda...
    No, that isn't what an argument is. Google it.
    On the topic of humanity... You can measure poverty, but you cannot measure absolute morality, nor can you measure what makes somebody human other than what we have biologically.
    You can only measure poverty relative to affluence. It's as relative as morality.

    Biology is part of humanity, but there's much more to it than that, surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I didn't actually call you a pretentious arse but never mind ,eh.
    Never said you did.
    You can only measure poverty relative to affluence. It's as relative as morality.

    Biology is part of humanity, but there's much more to it than that, surely?
    Well there's a difference between absolute and relative poverty. For example the World Bank says that to be in absolute poverty you have to be living off less than $1 a day, there are other factors such as life expectancy, infant mortality and so on. However, poverty statistics do usually measure inequality rather than material deprivation... But you cannot deny that people who can't even get a clean drink of water are not in absolute poverty.

    As for morality, it is an ongoing debate and not one that can be measured in a material sense. You could look at it from a Kantian perspective, but then the Kantian humanist ideas of human rights and morality from the West is very different to what is considered just under Sharia law. Because we do not have a material basis of what is right and what is wrong in the first place then how can we even start to measure it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well there's a difference between absolute and relative poverty. For example the World Bank says that to be in absolute poverty you have to be living off less than $1 a day, there are other factors such as life expectancy, infant mortality and so on. However, poverty statistics do usually measure inequality rather than material deprivation... But you cannot deny that people who can't even get a clean drink of water are not in absolute poverty.
    It's all made up though. What is a dollar? What is life expectancy/infant mortality? You must compare one thing with another to say it is bad. "Absolute poverty" is just the definition of being able to afford the bare essentials for life with a dollar value attached. If the whole world was living on less than $1 a day, would poverty exist? Or $100? Or $1000? It's all relative.
    Because we do not have a material basis of what is right and what is wrong in the first place then how can we even start to measure it?
    Not sure how that's relevant here, but is a good example of you demonstrating your humanity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps poverty shouldn't be measured by numbers (of dollars earned) but by parametres.

    If a family doesn't have enough money to provide adequate food to themselves; if they cannot afford a home with basic sanitation and utilities, such as water, or alternative a house near enough a source of water; if they cannot afford to at least occasionally buy themselves new clothes and shoes when the old ones wear out; if they cannot afford to send their children to school or have to pull them out and make them help ends meet for the family...

    If any, let alone all, of those situations happen, then the people in question are poor, and unaccetably so. And mankind as a whole will remain semi-barbarian while such inequalities continue to exist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So somebody with mental retardation who does not match your criteria is an animal and not human then?

    :confused:

    Lost me completely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Perhaps poverty shouldn't be measured by numbers (of dollars earned) but by parametres.
    If a family doesn't have enough money to provide adequate food to themselves; if they cannot afford a home with basic sanitation and utilities, such as water, or alternative a house near enough a source of water; if they cannot afford to at least occasionally buy themselves new clothes and shoes when the old ones wear out; if they cannot afford to send their children to school or have to pull them out and make them help ends meet for the family...
    I believe the 1 dollar a day standard was set originally looking at parameters and then trying to even it out as to be able to translate those parameters into one number - only to make it simpler.
    Aladdin wrote:
    If any, let alone all, of those situations happen, then the people in question are poor, and unaccetably so. And mankind as a whole will remain semi-barbarian while such inequalities continue to exist.
    :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

    I had never agreed with you more Aladdin! (if ever! :razz: )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Knowing that, no matter how shite life gets, at least I don't have to wake up and live with the fact I support Tottenham Hotspur.

    could be worse,waking up, up north for instance.... :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Plants don't breathe, and we're not defining what is a human but what is humanity - what sets humans apart from other life, really.

    at least someone knew what i was getting at!

    the fact the most went literal illustrates my point imo.

    human!

    the human feeling?..........no?

    its important!

    humanity?

    the way we feel without being told what to do?

    compassion?

    regret?

    hate?

    helping others?

    have we all forgot?

    i think we have tbh.... :crying:


    compassion is easy,doing something about it isnt!


    "humanity",does not exist anymore!........i may be nieve,but i thought we had it once.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    It's all made up though. What is a dollar? What is life expectancy/infant mortality? You must compare one thing with another to say it is bad. "Absolute poverty" is just the definition of being able to afford the bare essentials for life with a dollar value attached. If the whole world was living on less than $1 a day, would poverty exist? Or $100? Or $1000? It's all relative.

    Not sure how that's relevant here, but is a good example of you demonstrating your humanity.
    You are right, what is a dollar? The same as 'what is morality'? 'What is humanity'?

    A dollar exists physically though, reguardless of the degree of hardship the people are going through it is used statistically and perhaps scientifically to create a guidline as to what 'poverty' is. If the whole world ended up living on a dollar, the means of measuring 'poverty' would naturally change. It is simply a way to measure wealth and would be more ideal if it were to measure posessions or gross income of the people instead.

    What is your opinion on what humanity is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    :confused:

    Lost me completely.
    Go back and read what I put?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go back and read what I put?

    I have and it completely baffles me.

    There's no species of any animal on earth that are totally healthy and perfect, there will be some with defects, physically or mentally. When we talk abouit humanity we talk about the collective efforts of humans. What sets us a part. Nowhere did I say disabled people weren't human.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What Descartes meant by Cogito Ergo Sum was that we know we exist because we can think about existing.
    What I said earlier.
Sign In or Register to comment.