| | Neil, please view my comments below:
"Along with her rejection of original sin, she also denied that human beings have instincts, and therefore any tendency to self-destructive or irrational behavior."
Instincts are often misunderstood by intellectuals. Instincts in animals are simply thought-free survival responses to environmental cues, naturally-selected throughout evolutionary lines. Many intellectuals maintain that survival mechanisms must be entirely absent in order for humans to be entirely volitional - this is nonsense writ large. Once "thought" enters into the picture (as in humans), a whole new ball game appears, whether any hint of survival mechanisms remain, or not.
Speaking of ball games, an illustrative analogy is available by picturing thought as if it was an extra BaseBall player on a field that, for animals, always and only has the usual nine players.
In this analogy, adding thought into the mix is like adding another baseball player in between the pitcher and the batter. Notice how this tenth player has total control of the game (without a pitch, plays cannot proceed; nobody gets a hit; nobody gets on base).
If a pitch is thrown (by the pitcher on the mound) that this additional player does not like, then he merely intercedes and stops the pitch half-way - by catching it before it reaches the batter; ie. before it can be put into play.
This is what human thought does to survival instincts; it supercedes them. Folks can CHOOSE acts decidedly and definitely contrary to their survival, such as suicide-bombing (for a sober example). Animals cannot make such choices - they act always and only on environmental cues and these cues only become more complex and comprehensive as the animal develops memories and association (protect "Master" - as he feeds and protects me).
The "selfless-ness" animals appear to show when protecting their master is from mere concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment association. You can get animals to die for you (although they don't know that they're mortal), but you cannot get animals to live for you. They cannot "associate" into the abstract realm where human living, by its nature, becomes a rich experience.
"If reason is man’s key to survival, why have there been so few periods of history when reason has gained the upper hand?"
Answer: A logical cycle underlays this process. If a man is in dire straights, then he will adopt Reason to survive. Once men have used reason to generate prosperity, some will become complacent - like the over-confident Hare, taking a nap after gaining a lead; in the race between the Tortoise and the Hare. A select few (e.g. SOLO-ists, etc) will mentally retain focus on what it is that produces prosperity from nature, on what it is that makes humans human, and on what it is that provides for the rich experience of human life in this world.
An alternative, more-optimistic view is available. If Hobbes - who helped propagate "religion" as much as (and perhaps even more than!) Aquinas, or even Augustine, did - were right about human nature, then I guarantee you that SOLOHQ, in its present, beautific form; with its grand, beneficent vision; and with its stellar, human-loving, value-seeking contributors - WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST.
To end, I will quote Dean Hall, a contributor on SOLO who recently said (on a News thread) something both relevant and profound:
" ... it's good to see that THE ONE AND ONLY HUMAN-LOVING PHILOSOPHY on the planet is coming to the attention of those who wish to elevate inanimate matter and far-from-completely-conscious organisms to a value higher than individuals of the only species capable of determining value." [caps added]
Ed
|
|
