Only Human

[Vito]

We've all heard it: "I'm only human."

The phrase is often used in a way that's roughly equivalent to, "Hey...whaddya want? I'm a friggin' mental patient, fer cryin' out loud."

No argument there.

:joker:

 

[lifeon2]

Just guessing here but it seems like maybe some extra stupid people have been a part of your existence lately?

 

[Vito]

Just guessing here but it seems like maybe some extra stupid people have been a part of your existence lately?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "stupid". If you mean "deliberately remaining ignorant of certain facts due to determined refusal to acknowledge them", that's part of it. If you mean, "blinded by prejudice to the exclusion of all other perspectives or points of view", that's part of it too.

But it runs deeper. I think it has something to do with the pseudo-ego—the fictitious being people create based on the opinion of themselves that they want other people to have. It's distinct from their real self-image; rather, it's the image of themselves they think (or hope) others have. Often those two images are very different.

The trouble starts when the difference between the two self-images increases, and the self buys into the outward (projected) one as the "real" one, and begins to prop it up at all costs. Truth is usually the first casualty, and it goes downhill from there.

:joker:

 

[puros_bran]

Down With Truth!

 

[lifeon2]

Thats some pretty deep thinking I usually just sort folks into good people or wasting my precious air.

 

[puros_bran]

Vito kinda specializes in deep thinking.. That's part of his pseudo-ego..

 

[i.keenum]

Can't ya just say "so and so is an ass hat " like a normal person. :lol!: I kid

 

[Vito]

Vito kinda specializes in deep thinking.. That's part of his pseudo-ego..

I wish that were true, pb. If it were a part of the mere pseudo-ego, it would fall under my perpetual task of stalking my pseudo-ego with murderous intent, and I'll be able to drop it.

Alas, the deep thinking thang is apparently a birth defect. It happens "in here", regardless of whether I let it out or not. I say "alas" because one of its pastimes is sorting right from wrong, good from evil, beneficence from scumbaggery. On its face, the knowledge of good and evil would seem to be a useful thing, but it didn't do much for Adam & Eve...who, after all, were Only Human<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>.

Regardless of whether one accepts Genesis as literal truth, it seems there's a lesson there—namely, to the extent that deep thinking gives you a knowledge of good and evil, it can make you crazy and cause all kinds of trouble. Even if you never let it out. :mrgreen:

:joker:

 

[puros_bran]

Told ya so.

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Oft said by me: "Yes, I'm only human...but that's my biggest hurdle in life."

*shrug*

Totally a birth defect, Veet.

8)

 

[puros_bran]

IF you listen to evolutionist Life is caused by birth defect..

 

[Vito]

IF you listen to evolutionist Life is caused by birth defect..

Well, my use of the term "birth defect" is tongue-in-cheek...that is, mostly facetious, in the same way that I refer to myself as a mutant. It means, "I seem to be a minority on this point."

Actually, most evolutionists don't have much to say about the origins of life itself. They mostly confine themselves to what has happened since life began. Ironically, biology (the study of living systems) doesn't even have a concise, coherent, universally accepted definition of life, much less a plausible theory as to how it emerged from the inanimate world.

Anyhow, pb, I agree; I think it's fair to say that mutations are "birth defects" for all practical purposes, and in that sense the entire concept of evolution of the species is based on birth defects. I emphasize "of the species" because I tend to use the term evolution in a much broader sense...that is, in one that is not strictly limited to the kind of biological evolution that was the subject of Mr. Darwin's work.

In fact, setting aside all (unresolvable) arguments about Darwinian evolution—which arguments are of no interest to me—I think it's more useful to concern myself with evolution in the broader sense...by which I mean, where do we go from here? That seems to be a more reasonable question. It's certainly one over whose outcome we have some control. We can't do a damned thing about what happened in the past. :mrgreen:

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

We can't do a damned thing about what happened in the past. :mrgreen:

:joker:

Yeah...I still like sinful apples and the ape side of me digs bananas. It's all very confusing.

8)

 

[i.keenum]

No longer is it survivable of the strongest, the best traits for an area don't determine if a human lives our dies anymore. Its interesting to think what humans will evolve to from here once natural selection is removed from the equation. Possibly it will be more scientifically altered, such as gene alteration to remove disease or traits that cause obesity or mental illness.

 

[tgwilt]

No longer is it survivable of the strongest, the best traits for an area don't determine if a human lives our dies anymore. Its interesting to think what humans will evolve to from here once natural selection is removed from the equation. Possibly it will be more scientifically altered, such as gene alteration to remove disease or traits that cause obesity or mental illness.

I am so screwed!

 

[Puff Daddy]

We've all heard it: "I'm only human."

The phrase is often used in a way that's roughly equivalent to, "Hey...whaddya want? I'm a friggin' mental patient, fer cryin' out loud."

No argument there.

:joker:

I usually see the phrase used as an excuse by a person who did something they knew was wrong but wanted to do anyway. Validation of a poor ethical choice. A get out of jail free card that never works but is whipped out anyhow. It has nothing to do with creation or evolution or intrinsic biological human traits. Well, other than selfishness. Why don't people at least just be honest and say "I'm selfish, I wanted this for me cuz it's more important to me than you are". Prolly cuz responsibilty is not an instrinsic human trait either.

 

[puros_bran]

The pseudo-ego disallows such honesty.

 

[BigCasino]

I see it more as another way to say " to Error is human" cause everyone makes mistakes

 

[Vito]

The pseudo-ego disallows such honesty.

Bingo! :cheers:

...once natural selection is removed from the equation...

I guess it depends on what you mean by "natural selection". Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the biggest or the strongest. "The fittest" means "those who are best suited to adapt to their environment." But the environment is not a static thing. It changes, and as it changes, so do the parameters that determine survivability. We use technology to insulate us from a hostile environment, but in so doing we create a different environment. It's called civilization.

The general view of civilization is that it's not natural, but I take a very broad view of the term "natural". Most folks probably would disagree, but I don't exclude humanity from what is natural. If you're going to insist that we're the product of biological evolution, then we and everything we do is just as much a part of the "natural world" as bat poop and old growth forests. That's right—a meer pipe with a Latweed blend, a glass of Irish whiskey, and some electro-twang tunage is one seriously right and proper natural thang! :twisted:

That must surely sound like heresy to those who insist on blaming everything on humans, and who think that civilization is a blight upon the face of Mother Earth. Too bad. If Mother Earth doesn't like it, she should've raised us better. Mother Earth evolved us. Deal with it. After all, we're Only Human<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>.

The point is that, from a certain perspective, natural selection will never be removed from the equation, because it can't be removed from the equation. All you can say is that the criteria by which natural selection determines survivability are dynamic. We don't know where future evolution is headed, but we know that natural selection—survivability that depends on the ability to adapt—is a principle that is not likely to founder. It's pretty much the way the universe works.

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

The general view of civilization is that it's not natural, but I take a very broad view of the term "natural". Most folks probably would disagree, but I don't exclude humanity from what is natural. If you're going to insist that we're the product of biological evolution, then we and everything we do is just as much a part of the "natural world" as bat poop and old growth forests. That's right—a meer pipe with a Latweed blend, a glass of Irish whiskey, and some electro-twang tunage is one seriously right and proper natural thang! :twisted:

:cheers: Been preachin' this kind of idea for years, much to the chagrin of most. I agree with you. Hopefully that alone won't discredit your observant notions in this department. :lol:

"The only thing that's artificial is the concept of artificiality."

8)