The most annoying beliefs

Humanity is the behaviour of humans? This is self evidently absurd. Are you suggesting that a chimpanzee that wears a bowler hat and drinks tea is a human, or a parrot who says human-like words is in some way human? Clearly there is a biological dimension involved and it is that which is human nature / chimpanzee nature / parrot nature etc. Human behaviour arises as a consequence of human nature interacting with environmental factors. This is all pretty obvious.

 

veganism

 

Not really a belief. It's usually collections of varying beliefs relating to animal rights, nutrition, nature etc. Some can be stupid and some are valid.

If, for example, somebody objected to eating an egg which had been laid by a wild chicken and left in the grass, this would be a difficult objection to defend.

Similarly, if they tried to claim that there is some divine structure to nature that involves humans not taking unfertilised eggs which are laid daily by wild birds, this belief would have no basis in provable reality.

Points made by some vegans may, however, be backed up by evidence, such as a philosophy which involves not knowingly making mammals suffer and eating plenty of pulses, grains, fruits and vegetables.

 

it still annoys me

 

Lithium:

It is absurd, relatively speaking. Definitely self-evident. : D

No. Nature that apes or parrots our behaviour is not our own, unless it is. : D
The mimicry or approximation of a behaviour is not that behaviour.

You are saying there is an essential difference between what a human is and what a human does? What on earth is it?! : D

What an annoying belief to have to rid oneself of! ;D

Stop making me feel so scientifical!

 

BBAD:

More bacon and eggs for us.

 

Well spotted.

Try reading my previous posts several times, more slowly.

 

:smash:

 

A related idiotic belief: the idea that human nature is culturally conditioned. Unfortunately this idea was espoused for quite a long time by some fashionable philosophers, and is still common currency among many, particularly radical feminists. If you bring up a Chinese child in Britain, the child will obviously be culturally British. Surely, then, if you bring up a boy as a girl then that boy will be a cultural girl, proving that all social and gender roles are culturally determined. This belief spectacularly misses some important and self-evident points about biology, such as the genetic and hormonal influences on behaviour, which is why it is only held by the scientifically illiterate.

 

:hide:

It's no use! I can't find it. It isn't there. Nature behaves. Sometimes it misbehaves. :sunny:
In any case there is nothing which distinguishes it apart from its behaviour.

 

I like the animal puns. I think we share a part of our nature with such creatures as chimps, most definitely in our mimicry of behaviour in response to our environment, ie those around us. Arguably there are many many animals that share this same trait. On a basic level, human nature is not far apart from the beasts.

I would think that it is easier to discuss examples to test these views of nature vs. nurture. What do we mean by human nature? How far does human behaviour take over?

I remember a show with that twat Justin Lee Collins and he was in Japan. In a restaurant he visited, there was a monkey employed as a little novelty waiter. The freaky thing was that the monkey was nervous around new people so would wear a scary mask until he felt more relaxed. The monkey technically earned pay, of course mostly in the form of food. We find out he actually works in the restaurant, sitting on a little stool, hanging out with the customers, taking little objects to tables. Basically, his situation, or his environment, is not dissimilar to that of a human waiter, albeit a live-in one.

As Dejavu says in not so many words, it is ours and everything's nature to behave. But would we say that it is in the monkey's nature to wait on tables? Would we say, for that matter, that it is in a human's nature to wait on tables?

We draw a strong simial similarity in many levels of behaviour. What sets humans aside is perhaps what you'd call a stronger sense of self, leading to analytical thinking in the abstract and creative realms. A product of higher intelligence. Humans display the widest variety of all creatures we know of, not least because we're capable of being so destructive towards one another.

In a way, we can't really talk about human nature because we are removed so far apart from it. The only conclusion that you can draw is that we, like many other species, merely respond to our environment, we make ourselves fit in to the picture, even if we're not really sure what that picture is. Humans have a lot of control over which environment they're in which is a result of our advanced creativity, so perhaps it is our nature to apply ourselves to our environment, possibly a very faint (maybe strong) signal from the cyclical nature of the natural world.

I just thought of one of the beliefs that really annoys me: "It's genetic."

 

This kind of question actually highlights a common problem in understanding the relationship between nature and culture with which many apparently have such trouble. Clearly waiting on tables is not a phenotypic variation, but a behavioural side product of a set of propensities and capabilities which feed into the combined abilities to manipulate objects with fine precision, assimilate information and respond to other creatures, etc. Absent these evolved capabilities, this specific cultural behaviour could not arise. I think people can be forgiven for making these very common mistakes and misunderstandings, many years of muddy thinking in philosophy and the humanities has left a great legacy of idiotic thinking from which many are yet to escape. The Standard Social Science Model has a lot to answer for... Still an annoying and rather stupid belief though.

 

I've always wondered if this is why some people are gay? Not saying parents purposely brought the child up as another gender but subconsciously may have implanted gender bending cues.

 

No.

 

This has to be the most annoying topic on every forum I go on. I'm convinced its true by the vast amount of information and resources thats been generated.

 

That lives can be saved.

 

mine was.

 

For how long?! : D

If I am understanding thedope correctly, he finds belief in an after-life of no use personally.

Lives can be lived.



Lithium:

lol! :2thumbsup: To think I once waited on tables when this is all it is!

Absent like the inherent difference between nature and its behaviour you mean?! ;D

 

ok..who the hell is disliking my posts?..

 

Wasn't me. I like liking posts mostly. : D

From now on I'm never going to not like a post again! :mickey:The poor things!
I can't promise not to like them though while this annoying anonymous feedback feature exists.