How deep do you blades really think?

The problem is, the average individual is not self sufficient, hence the need for the creation of the polis. Again, you describe the spirit as self confidence. If someone kills you, they have certainly brought you down, no matter what. This is why one obeys the laws that allow for their protection.

And my argument is that the soul and spirit, the things that make us "us", are nothing more than products of the brain.

Can you explain what you consider natural? For the sake of discussion please

 

How would you ever know this would happen? I mean once your spirit leaves the body, it no longer has the organs that allow us to experience.

 

No offense, but the Republic is an idealistic view.

 

How would you remember them or know they were happening if they weren't?

 

Thought I should finally answer my own question a little more in depth

This is a short paper I had to write for a class.

All humans cannot be rational. That fantasy of an idea has no evidence of ever existing, nor does it have any signs of happening in the future. Only rational human beings can overcome estrangement with reason. To prove this, I will discuss foundational ideas that make up a rational human being. We then must debate whether or not estrangement is avoidable or not. I also believe that estrangement is just part of our primitive instincts, and being rational is a constant learning process. Rather than providing two sides to this argument, I will use different philosophical thinker's ideas, and mold attempt to mold them into one form. I believe human beings cannot overcome estrangement with reason without the assembly of man.

To start, I strongly believe human beings individually cannot overcome estrangement. However, I believe the more and more people who come together, the ability to overcome estrangement increases. Aristotle teaches us in his Politics book, that man is a political animal, as well as a social animal. This addresses that we strive to fit in, and interact with the people around us. It also tells us that we as humans strive for conflict, because we are political animals. The fact that we live in society brings up the conflict of estrangement, and because the issue of personal rights exists, we are all estranged.

The foundation of my argument is whether humans think or act on conflicting matters. Do you think before you act or act before you think things through? It would seem that the ones who think would have the greater knowledge because revenge, anger, and superiority are extremely hard to overcome. Let's create a scenario. Have you been so provoked, so enraged that you do something you would normally never do? Perhaps you hit someone for insulting someone dear to you. You experience the protection, even the anger when you react. This is your primitive instinct, and they are in every one of us. They are the same instincts animals use every second of their lives. They act on protection, hunger, and more importantly dominance. We can think of a pride of lions in this case. Lions will actually fight other lions to protect their own prides (which are groups made up of around 2-7). They will also attack other lions to eat first and also to protect their territory. Don't these traits look familiar to some of ours? Perhaps all animals, including mammals (but more importantly us), are control by these instincts.

If we are controlled by our primitive instincts, is it possible for us to be reasonable? I believe every human has the ability to reason, but whether they use it or not is up to them. Being reasonable requires obtaining knowledge, and never stopping when you think you know everything. Plato said, “Knowledge is virtue and virtue is knowledge.” He also says virtue is our soul; it makes us man. The soul naturally seeks well, because it is human nature to wonder what is good and evil. So we know how reason is knowledge, knowledge is virtue. Virtue makes us man.

What does man do? It makes up society. Without man, our knowledge, our souls, our reasoning; we are left with a primitive society controlled by instincts. When we are primitive, we ignore the whole and focus on ourselves. To make up a society, we must think unity rather than parts. We must have the ability to think rationally rather than focus on desires. We must get passed estrangement. So can a rational human being surpass estrangement with reason? We can now look at the question as; Can a rational human being surpass primitive instincts by obtaining knowledge, which is the path to become man?

Now we must define a rational human being. Let's start broad by saying a rational human being weighs all possible outcomes of certain events, and chooses the one that's best for the unity. He will not choose a desirable outcome, because then he is no longer rational. It is safe to say being a rational human being is very difficult. Let's look at the word best now. What is best, does it change for every situation? I believe what is best is anything that points towards obtaining knowledge. The more we know, the more we become man. Learning new things allows us to present more possible outcomes. So, again lets restate the question in a more in depth way. Can a man, who has obtained vast amounts of knowledge, overcome primitive instincts with his obtained knowledge, which is the path to become man?

My answer is potentially yes, in actuality no. It is potentially yes because our ideas can be perfect. Plato says our ideas are blocked by this physical world. Everyone could think of the possible utopian paradise, but when it boils down to it, men still have their primitive instincts. Realistically however, I believe Aristotle hits the nail on the hammer when he says that true human essence can be seen by the assembly of men. (We see this in Aristotle's Politics) Human beings as a unity can work together, to overcome estrangement. This does bring up a problem, which is that it assumes human nature must have assemblage in order to fully understand the true meaning of essence. However, we can address this issue. No one man is self sufficient, we see Plato and Aristotle both agree. Since we cannot rely on ourselves individually for survival, it is human nature to come together to provide these basic survival needs. When we come together we form society, with more and more demands needed to be met. We therefore strive for assemblage; it is human nature to live with others, and to be part of the system.

It is also impossible to not have disagreements with others because different backgrounds, beliefs, and parts of the world have different ideas. If someone has a different view of running society, you are not going to agree with him or her. You have your own ideas, and they could be right. When we have differences, we have conflicts. If we have conflicts we have arguing, even fighting. If we have fighting, then we as human beings are not being rational. Tinder brings up an important issue with beliefs. He says “our overriding duty being to obey the commands of God.” (page 33) I do not wish to discuss too deeply, but this raises the question of whether or not human beings need the sense of God to behave morally.

Tinder also discusses Edmund Burke's theory, which I personally also agree with. Burke's idea is that “established customs and traditions reflected human nature far more accurately than did the abstract conclusions of reason.” I completely agree, and we can even reflect this on today's society. Look at it on a small scale. Many of our young adults today are shape by their surroundings growing up. When individuals fail to succeed early in lives, much of the blame goes on the household growing up. Ones problems are assumed related to the problems of a disfunctional home. If a young adult was abused at home, we will possibly see that individual have outbreaks of violence. Point being, each individual can act different according to his or her influenced teachings beliefs of the growing up surroundings.

We must also bring into discussion Hobbes' social contract. He states that each individual is concerned only by personal safety, but using reason shows that in order to obtain personal safety, one must obey the laws of the government. Like Plato, Hobbes seems very idealistic with this statement. Although I personally agree with this theory, I also believe that not everyone follows this method. One can think rationality that if an individual is working for the better of society but is not receiving any benefits, that individual will not be a fan of the system. We are then left with conflict, or estrangement.

Only rational human beings can overcome estrangement with reason. Rationality takes education and the obtainment of knowledge. It allows us to create more possibilities for every outcome, and we can present these outcomes subjectively in front of us to decide. We must also take into consideration the basic survival instincts of all animals. All animals have embedded in their DNA the traits for certain instincts. Dominance for example, is one that is a hard trait to overcome. We are influenced by these traits, whether we like it or not. Since all human beings are not capable of overcoming these instincts with reason, we must unite as one assembly. Even though Burke believes established customs and traditions reflected human nature, this avoids the point of certain individuals overcoming the already established tradition and custom, and creates their own new path. We can see this in the sprayers of religion. I would like to end this paper with a quote, which will wrap this up nicely. Aristotle said, “What is a friend? It is one soul, dwelling in two bodies.”



-fatbluntsyo

 

It refers to the OP, and yes, it answers it. If you are having trouble pulling out what I was saying, then you do not understand my argument. Questions like this can not be answered simply as yes or no, and require a much more in depth look at all influencing factors. I posted the paper so you can read, understand my argument, and then ask questions from there.

if you need help, my argument is that we are animals still driven on animal instincts, which results in our estrangment. We only live in society to provide for basic survival needs, but in return, we need sets of rules to control us.

fby