|
Post by brandt on Mar 18, 2012 7:52:30 GMT 10
Could it be that instinct leads to behaviors. An instinct to survive (eat, drink, etc.) has lead to hunting, fishing, farming, and preserving food. Preserving food in that food is not eaten immediately but is stored for future use. Other animals do this as well, we are just really good at it depending upon one's opinion on some of the preservatives that we use.
My problem is that society, the proposed teaching mechanism, could not have existed prior to the individuals in the society. That being the case the behaviors of the individuals in the society are the most likely cause and society being the effect. In essence society cannot come from society. It originated as behaviors that were needed for survival. Like other things society then became a selection pressure of its own but not at the expense of the other pressures.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 18, 2012 9:38:56 GMT 10
Could it be that instinct leads to behaviors. An instinct to survive (eat, drink, etc.) has lead to hunting, fishing, farming, and preserving food. Preserving food in that food is not eaten immediately but is stored for future use. Other animals do this as well, we are just really good at it depending upon one's opinion on some of the preservatives that we use.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 18, 2012 9:54:09 GMT 10
My problem is that society, the proposed teaching mechanism, could not have existed prior to the individuals in the society. That being the case the behaviors of the individuals in the society are the most likely cause and society being the effect. In essence society cannot come from society. It originated as behaviors that were needed for survival. Like other things society then became a selection pressure of its own but not at the expense of the other pressures. So, not satisfied with my saying society evolves from preexisting societies, you say society comes from the individual. Do you not see the paradox (perhaps the absurdity) here? The instinct driven individuals from which we evolved appear to have already been social animals. Inferring our evolutionary line from our closest relatives, it is most likely that it has been characterised by a combination of lessening instincts and increasing learning in a social environment. Assuming we have crossed the line of finally doing without instincts, we did so in a social environment and, in any case, we are born so helpless that we cannot survive infancy on our own. Possibly we have yet to cross that line but it remains to be shown which, if any, instincts persist.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 18, 2012 16:42:17 GMT 10
So, not satisfied with my saying society evolves from preexisting societies, you say society comes from the individual. Do you not see the paradox (perhaps the absurdity) here? E unum pluribus.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 18, 2012 16:53:01 GMT 10
An instinct to survive (eat, drink, etc.).... The so-called survival instinct is at most a goal not properly an instinct. That goal is best achieved by learned, flexible and imaginative behaviours rather than by specific, innate behaviours. I am thinking of one of the Indiana Jones movies where he was stopped by an expert swordsman demonstrating almost ritualistic threatening behaviour. Indiana drew his gun and shot him.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 19, 2012 4:32:58 GMT 10
Love the Indiana Jones movies.
Brother Philip, I am not sure how a thought that society comes from the individuals in society. The individual(s) make up the society. We certainly selected to be social primates, it served survival better than being solitary. I think only the orangutan is the only primarily lone primate.
We are born helpless and would soon die if not for care. Other animals are also helpless, birds for example. They do develop faster, we develop slower. Our large brains are part of the reason for the development (parts of our brain take approximately two decades to fully develop).
To tag all of our positive qualities and those many things that we don't do well onto learning is short-sighted. Ignoring our biological limitations leaves out important information. I don't think that we have improved much socially. Of course I am of the opinion that an ICBM is very sophisticated spear.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 19, 2012 6:15:38 GMT 10
Brother Philip, I am not sure how a thought that society comes from the individuals in society. Bro. Brandt, do you need to complete that sentence?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 19, 2012 6:18:22 GMT 10
;-) You may well at that. Perhaps I should proofread before hinting "post reply?"
I am not sure how a thought that society comes from individuals in society is paradoxical? Individuals can exist without society though I admit that we don't do well. Society on the other hand doesn't exist without individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 19, 2012 14:12:19 GMT 10
One individual does not make a society. That comes about from relationships between individuals. Relationships have been around longer than humans.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 19, 2012 14:35:33 GMT 10
True, but then again no society makes individuals. We seem to have the making of people down pat. It doesn't take a village, all it takes is a couple of moderately motivated people.
I wouldn't call three people a society, at what point does it become a society? Does being a member of society negate the individual? In any case an individual does exist without society, society does not exist without individuals.
|
|