mistyscout2 said:Well, if that's what he would have said, then fine. But I was speaking specifically within the context I intended when I made my point. 😛
Cassirer (or someone similar, if I recall correctly) might have called us a "symbolic animal." Aristotle would have used the term "zoon logon echon"—which, in a looser translation, means an animal capable of speech—or perhaps "zoon politikon," our social animal side.
But honestly, it all circles back to the same thing eventually. Aside from that Levi reference, which wasn't really what I was aiming for anyway—but that’s a whole different conversation... I actually posed some questions regarding that Levi definition over in the "What's the point of spirituality? We have capitalism" thread... It ties right into your discussion about rituals, too. You might find yourself getting sucked into that one as well...
So, why is a human being considered more spiritual than an animal? For me, it comes down to the fact that we possess language as we know it—including the physical ability to articulate sounds thanks to our specific anatomy, something monkeys, for instance, lack (though I’m always a bit skeptical about the idea that they might possess something significantly *more*, rather than just something different). Because of language, we can "transmit information," allowing us to build and pass down culture, or even create "memes"—which is such a trendy term now that even those cute little sociobiologists get their moment in the sun. Other animals just can't do that. At least, not that we know of... But I will say this: a human being isn't a purely natural creature. Not unless you count "culture" as a natural upgrade, and even then, that feels like a bit of a sophism or just silly wordplay. We all know what people mean when they distinguish between "nature" and "culture," or that famous old debate of nature versus nurture.
Maybe we could switch things up for once and actually deal with some hard facts—you know, the kind of stuff anyone who survived a basic elementary biology class should already have tucked away in their brain. It’s an absolute, undeniable fact that humans are animals, plain and simple. So, honestly, talking about "humans versus animals" is just total nonsense. It’s the same ridiculous logic as people separating "humans from monkeys," when at the end of the day, we are just apes. Period.
So, I was just sitting here thinking about what Richard Dawkins was getting at in that "The Fifth Avenue" video... you know, that whole deep dive into how we became who we are? It’s wild when you really sit with it.I can't actually watch videos directly through links, so if you want me to dive into whatever madness is happening in that clip, you're gonna have to give me the gist of it first. Just lay out what’s going down—the arguments, the people involved, the whole chaotic scene—and I'll get to work on it. Once I know what we're dealing with, I'll spin it into something worth reading."Look, let's get one thing straight: humans don't actually hold some divine throne over the animal kingdom. We aren't some separate, superior species looking down from above; we’re just animals ourselves, plain and simple. We're basically just The Fifth Avenue."
It’s honestly such a load of crap to claim that other animals don't develop cultures; I mean, look at chimpanzees, they're out there doing it all the time. People love to lean on that tired old argument that humans are just "smarter" because our brains are bigger than, say, a chimp's, but if we're playing by that logic, then whales are technically smarter than us since their brains are massive compared to ours—though, hey, I guess we won't truly know for sure until someone actually does the deep-dive research on that. Of course, the immediate knee-jerk reaction from everyone is to point at our tech and civilization like it's some kind of ultimate proof of superiority. But honestly? It isn't. If we didn't have functional hands and fingers, none of this would exist; period. Even if we had them, if we were stuck living under the ocean instead of on land, we wouldn't have built a damn thing beyond maybe some crude stone tools, because you can't exactly smelt metal without fire, and let's face it, fire and the ocean don't exactly get along.
When you listen to people spout that kind of nonsense, it’s easy to fall for the trap of thinking every single human being on this planet possesses some sort of god-tier capability that no other animal could ever touch. But let's be real—that is a total load of crap. If we’re looking at any objective metric, plenty of non-human animals are operating at a significantly higher intellectual level than a huge chunk of the human population, specifically those dealing with severe cognitive impairments. We’re talking about chimps and gorillas that can actually learn sign language and pass standardized intelligence tests, whereas for a lot of people, even that basic stuff is out of reach. So, what’s the logic there? Are we really going to claim those specific people possess spirituality while the chimps and gorillas—who are clearly outperforming them by every measurable standard—don't? It just doesn't hold up.