PDA

View Full Version : Random thought of the day....



danjama
04-22-2006, 06:13 PM
Hi chaps and chapettes, how is everyone doing today?

I played some football and came home, then watched Ray (the film about Ray Charles). I'd seen it before anyway but i felt like watching it, it is a really good film. In fact, ive just been to the website on him and read his autobiography. It was quite deep and insightful. In fact most of the website is very interesting. Go and check it out here. (http://www.raycharles.com)

Being the weekend im in a very relaxed mood. I sat back on the sofa and muted the TV at 10.30, and just began to think randomly about stuff. Anyone else ever do that?!

We had quite a deep discussion in English Lit yesterday about what defines a human being (we're reading Frankenstein so it was quite relevant). In Frankenstein the "monster" is rejected by society and even by his creator. The truth is he is a human like everyone else; he has vices and virtues and at the tip of the iceberg he even feels emotions like a human(bad and good feelings), but society neglects him because he is ugly. I think it is a shame that society can be so shallow. This is even more true in this day and age compared to when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I winder how many people have missed out on great friends and happy relationships because they couldnt get past the looks. Looks dont make a person. What does then? Actions?! Is it purely a biological thing?! Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesnt conform to what society expects. or is he not?!

Its very difficult to decide on such things when there is so much to consider. I think actions are the defining thing when looking back on your life. What did you do? How did this change your life or anyon elses for the better? Actions speak volumes. When God judges you, he looks at your actions. In my opinion, if a wild man once helped a injured monkey to feed while he was on his death bed, by climbing and getting bananas for him, that is easily as good an action as a man starting his own business and employing thousands, many of whom have family. Its all very relative.

I guess you can easily dismiss this post as rambling, but at the very least i hope ive given you all something to think about. Sometimes i just think random stuff like this.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-22-2006, 06:33 PM
I helped a sick monkey once. She buggered off with my best mate and most of my worldly goods. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

CapBackassward
04-22-2006, 06:42 PM
If you enjoy great literature, give Steinbeck a try. I'm still amazed at what he wrote when you consider the years he was around, 1930's to the 1960's. His observations are as relevent today as back then. He was so far ahead of his time. The environment, social problems, governments going in the wrong direction...


Rick

Aviar
04-22-2006, 07:46 PM
If you haven't seen it yet, rent The Man Without a Face, with Mel Gibson. You may enjoy it.

Aviar

HotelBushranger
04-22-2006, 11:54 PM
I'm eating an apple. It's very sour and untasty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ciscobird
04-23-2006, 12:06 AM
By the way, how's your jaw? Giving you any problem? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

growingcorn
04-23-2006, 12:46 AM
Read Animal Farm. It reflects upon the human society in the period the book was written. My policy is that never make a judgement on anything that I haven't experienced on.

Bremspropeller
04-23-2006, 05:22 AM
Danny goin wild over philosophy ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

danjama
04-23-2006, 07:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Its a shame people havnt given more thoughtful replies.

I saw man without a face when i was younger, i remember liking it.

Animal Farm and Steinbeck, ill give them a look!

John_Pimlott
04-23-2006, 09:37 AM
Natural, physical beauty, whilst being truly "In the eye of the beholder", is fleeting. Often I have noticed that those who don't feel beautiful, have in abundance an inner beauty. Kindness and compassion are often the resulting qualities, which make for a far more enduring beauty.
As a portrait painter, those are the qualities I have to try and capture on canvas, whether I'm painting a dazzling beauty or a plain Jane.
Without them showing inner beauty, I'm all at sea.
I don't know if that makes sense though.
Best wishes.
John.

ploughman
04-23-2006, 09:46 AM
Funnily enough John, I too am an artist by trade. I did a bit of portraiture and so on and lost quite a few commissions because I always insisted on having people talk intimately to me about their loved ones (they're almost always 'suprises' done without sittings) so I could get a handle on them. An aweful lot of folk just weren't prepared to open up in this way and got cold feet when they found out dropping off a few photos for their 'suprise' portrait just wasn't going to cut it. Without some kind of 'emotional' knowledge of the subject the image just lacked soul and it showed.

AFJ_Locust
04-23-2006, 11:53 AM
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

fordfan25
04-23-2006, 09:37 PM
peanut...hmmm its not a pea....and its not a nut....WTF are these things

FlatSpinMan
04-23-2006, 10:28 PM
And what freak named them?

PBNA-Boosher
04-23-2006, 10:33 PM
You know? If you think about it, pizza is really only bread, sauce, and cheese.

Lucius_Esox
04-23-2006, 11:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I can imagine if your really good looking it must give a pretty different slant on your world, people react to you differently.

Same if your pig ugly as well I suppose. Shallow of course.

How much of how we look effects the way we are?

Clothes maketh the man ??

AFJ_Locust
04-24-2006, 04:46 PM
"The King is naked!" shouted the boy.

An awkward hush fell across the crowd as excited murmurings ceased. Faces turned first to the youth sitting on his father's shoulders and then to the Monarch.

The child was triumphant. He had been the first to see, or at least to say, the remarkable truth.

The King visibly stiffened at the sound of the small piping voice. The King's guards faltered at their reins and their horses reared causing the great palanquin to halt momentarily before lurching ahead. The King pitched forward in a most undignified manner. Only a quick step saved him from toppling over. The King did not turn back to look at the boy who had dared lift the blissful veil of ignorance.

The delighted boy beamed as faces all about him in the crowd turned toward him in acknowledgment of his discovery. The sudden and unexpected silence was broken by the King's shrill command to his horsemen to better control their mounts. The palanquin lurched forward again as the King's procession creaked magisterially down the royal thoroughfare.

The boy felt his father's grip tighten around his spindly ankles. He winced as he looked down. Although the temperature was mild his father's bald spot flushed an angry red. He leaned down uncertainly to his father's ear and reasserted, "The King is naked." Then to make sure his father understood he added, "Isn't he?"

The father said nothing but tightened his grip still more.

Before the King had disappeared from view a halo formed around the boy and his father as the crowd drew away from them. The spectators began fleeing to their homes and livelihoods. Some faces in the throng turned furtively to stare at them both, father and son. The sound of feet shuffling over dry pavement was joined with that of suppressed whispers.

The father turned on his heels too and tried to rejoin the crowd. Again the boy implored, "The King was naked wasn't he?"

"Quiet lad," said the father in a curt and unfamiliar voice as he turned into his home bolting the door behind him and setting the boy on the floor. A passerby peered nervously through their window as he sped past.

"Boy," said the father. "You saw nothing. Do you understand me?"

"But why?" asked the confused and injured boy.

"Never you mind why," said his father with finality. "Don't let me or anyone else ever catch you saying that again. Do you understand me?"

The boy looked up at his father uncomprehending.

"Do you understand me?" His father repeated with genuine menace in his voice.

"Yes," the boy lied, too shocked to argue.

"Good," said the father. "Forget what you said at the parade today and maybe no harm will come of it."

But harm did come.

No customers visited his father's shop for the rest of the day. It wasn't until the next morning that a single customer came round. He hung back at the doorway and would not enter. Instead he glanced fearfully out into the street.

"I've come to collect my order," he sniveled. "It'll be my last. From now on I'll do my business with the tanner at St. Crispin's Parish."

"What!" his father started. "But that's a full day's travel from here!"

"Don't think I don't know it!" Said the figure in the doorway, "The King's guard have been making inquiries. About you€¦" he said, "... and your boy."

The visitor turned and peered anxiously down the street again. "Never mind my order," he quailed. Backing away the customer beat a hasty retreat. The boy rushed to the door and saw the man scurrying away from a troop of the king's guard, which was marching grimly toward the tanner's shop.

In the days that followed neighbors guiltily avoided walking past the tanner's empty abode. No proclamation was necessary. The nation understood. No one in the land was more splendidly attired than the king.

danjama
04-24-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I can imagine if your really good looking it must give a pretty different slant on your world, people react to you differently.

Same if your pig ugly as well I suppose. Shallow of course.

How much of how we look effects the way we are?

Clothes maketh the man ??

interesting. I find that generalising against people of good looks and discriminating against them by saying their ignorant is just as bad as their neglecting ugly people as friends. The truth is, i know people who are beautiful, but so kind. I know ugly people who are bloody ***zfaces. Its so difficult (and usually wrong anyway) to judge someone by their looks. Its shallow and demeaning and immoral.

The truth is, we should only judge people when we know them.

BTW Locust, i dont know if ur takin the piss but im enjoying your two extracts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-24-2006, 05:27 PM
The truth is, we should only judge people when we know them.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yep, for sure. and thats the nub of it.

Sometimes though I will cross the street because of what someone looks like even if I don't know em. I suppose that has got more to do with overall appearence though rather than how ugly or attractive someone is,, and stereotyping.

Program on British Tv the other day about a bloke looking at pictures of womens faces and grading them on attractiveness. What he didn't know was that before being shown the faces some of them were altered. The testers had put some of his own facial characteristics in.

Not quite sure what the exact figures were but basically the tests showed we are atrracted to faces which are similar to our own,,,, man,, lol. Explains some of my past girlfiends

AFJ_Locust
04-24-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I can imagine if your really good looking it must give a pretty different slant on your world, people react to you differently.

Same if your pig ugly as well I suppose. Shallow of course.

How much of how we look effects the way we are?

Clothes maketh the man ??

interesting. I find that generalising against people of good looks and discriminating against them by saying their ignorant is just as bad as their neglecting ugly people as friends. The truth is, i know people who are beautiful, but so kind. I know ugly people who are bloody ***zfaces. Its so difficult (and usually wrong anyway) to judge someone by their looks. Its shallow and demeaning and immoral.

The truth is, we should only judge people when we know them.

BTW Locust, i dont know if ur takin the piss but im enjoying your two extracts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basicaly it breaks down to respect and the Golden Rule, "Treat others as you want to be treated."

There is no clause that sayes please exclude: Ugly,Smart,Fat,Nerd,Dumb,Preaty,Rich,Poor etc..etc...

major problem in society is that we judge ourselves by how we think/feal or perceive others view us,(regaurdless of weather its the truth or not) We are constantaly trying to measure up to something that is non_reality (T.V., Commercials, Radio, Music, Fashon)
So while we are under this finger of Delusion/Illusion, we then cast the same judgment upon thoes around us, creating even more unreality. Its a vicious cycle.

Prime exzample: even while I wright this post, Im thinking about how others will feal or react to it/me, will they think Im an idiot? Will they even care? Will someone learn something that they never thought of before ? Fact is, its my reality, I shouldent have to consider others?

Should I ?

Or is that the oppression of being taught to respect others.

Either way ill stick with the Golden Rule, Seems to work well.

Lucius_Esox
04-24-2006, 06:19 PM
Interesting stuff.

I read a translation of Freud into "normal speak" once, in which he said humans have two basic reactions when they first see someone, do I want to f*ck em (could I?), or could I beat em in a fight?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Esel1964
04-24-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Hi chaps and chapettes, how is everyone doing today?

I played some football and came home, then watched Ray (the film about Ray Charles). I'd seen it before anyway but i felt like watching it, it is a really good film. In fact, ive just been to the website on him and read his autobiography. It was quite deep and insightful. In fact most of the website is very interesting. Go and check it out here. (http://www.raycharles.com)

Being the weekend im in a very relaxed mood. I sat back on the sofa and muted the TV at 10.30, and just began to think randomly about stuff. Anyone else ever do that?!

We had quite a deep discussion in English Lit yesterday about what defines a human being (we're reading Frankenstein so it was quite relevant). In Frankenstein the "monster" is rejected by society and even by his creator. The truth is he is a human like everyone else; he has vices and virtues and at the tip of the iceberg he even feels emotions like a human(bad and good feelings), but society neglects him because he is ugly. I think it is a shame that society can be so shallow. This is even more true in this day and age compared to when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I winder how many people have missed out on great friends and happy relationships because they couldnt get past the looks. Looks dont make a person. What does then? Actions?! Is it purely a biological thing?! Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesnt conform to what society expects. or is he not?!

Its very difficult to decide on such things when there is so much to consider. I think actions are the defining thing when looking back on your life. What did you do? How did this change your life or anyon elses for the better? Actions speak volumes. When God judges you, he looks at your actions. In my opinion, if a wild man once helped a injured monkey to feed while he was on his death bed, by climbing and getting bananas for him, that is easily as good an action as a man starting his own business and employing thousands, many of whom have family. Its all very relative.

I guess you can easily dismiss this post as rambling, but at the very least i hope ive given you all something to think about. Sometimes i just think random stuff like this.

I don't want to come across as a hardass,and I mean no disrespect to anyone;but y'all need to turn down the Ravi Shankar,and stop burning so much pachoulli incense on this thread.

I know "Frankenstein" was fiction,but you're applying human empathy and morals to a non-human object.It's not about appearance,it's about the reaction of people to a reanimated conglomeration of their DEAD fellow villagers.

Frankenstein was made from parts of dead people,making him a collection of human parts-NOT a human.Humans have individual DNA,the monster would be a DNA clusterf@#* -unhuman,therefore,not worthy of 'human moral' consideration.
Just because you feel bad for something,doesn't make it worthy of 'moral' debate.

Oh,and a truly "wild" man.would see the wounded monkey as prey(food),that's how nature works;nature doesn't care about what's moral or immoral.

Now,after all that Danjama-please don't think I'm attacking you,I'm just pointing a few things out in a friendly way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
Regards,M8

P.S. Almost forgot to mention this,if you're considering the feelings/emotions of a 'monster',how about the emotions/feelings of the families whose loved ones were dug up to build him.

danjama
04-25-2006, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Hi chaps and chapettes, how is everyone doing today?

I played some football and came home, then watched Ray (the film about Ray Charles). I'd seen it before anyway but i felt like watching it, it is a really good film. In fact, ive just been to the website on him and read his autobiography. It was quite deep and insightful. In fact most of the website is very interesting. Go and check it out here. (http://www.raycharles.com)

Being the weekend im in a very relaxed mood. I sat back on the sofa and muted the TV at 10.30, and just began to think randomly about stuff. Anyone else ever do that?!

We had quite a deep discussion in English Lit yesterday about what defines a human being (we're reading Frankenstein so it was quite relevant). In Frankenstein the "monster" is rejected by society and even by his creator. The truth is he is a human like everyone else; he has vices and virtues and at the tip of the iceberg he even feels emotions like a human(bad and good feelings), but society neglects him because he is ugly. I think it is a shame that society can be so shallow. This is even more true in this day and age compared to when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I winder how many people have missed out on great friends and happy relationships because they couldnt get past the looks. Looks dont make a person. What does then? Actions?! Is it purely a biological thing?! Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesnt conform to what society expects. or is he not?!

Its very difficult to decide on such things when there is so much to consider. I think actions are the defining thing when looking back on your life. What did you do? How did this change your life or anyon elses for the better? Actions speak volumes. When God judges you, he looks at your actions. In my opinion, if a wild man once helped a injured monkey to feed while he was on his death bed, by climbing and getting bananas for him, that is easily as good an action as a man starting his own business and employing thousands, many of whom have family. Its all very relative.

I guess you can easily dismiss this post as rambling, but at the very least i hope ive given you all something to think about. Sometimes i just think random stuff like this.

I don't want to come across as a hardass,and I mean no disrespect to anyone;but y'all need to turn down the Ravi Shankar,and stop burning so much pachoulli incense on this thread.

I know "Frankenstein" was fiction,but you're applying human empathy and morals to a non-human object.It's not about appearance,it's about the reaction of people to a reanimated conglomeration of their DEAD fellow villagers.

Frankenstein was made from parts of dead people,making him a collection of human parts-NOT a human.Humans have individual DNA,the monster would be a DNA clusterf@#* -unhuman,therefore,not worthy of 'human moral' consideration.
Just because you feel bad for something,doesn't make it worthy of 'moral' debate.

Oh,and a truly "wild" man.would see the wounded monkey as prey(food),that's how nature works;nature doesn't care about what's moral or immoral.

Now,after all that Danjama-please don't think I'm attacking you,I'm just pointing a few things out in a friendly way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
Regards,M8

P.S. Almost forgot to mention this,if you're considering the feelings/emotions of a 'monster',how about the emotions/feelings of the families whose loved ones were dug up to build him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, i appreciate what you saying, but you are looking at Frankenstein at face value. You can choose to look at it in another way: the literature way if you will....

Frankenstein was a study of human nature, and how far it could be pushed into accepting things out of the norm. It was a very contemporary idea for its time period; the idea of ideas being forced onto people by society, and making ill judgements, which is what people do when they meet the monster.

Your idea of him being truly something unhuman is not wrong by any means, as of course he is made from many different humans, but the book causes us to debate this issue. He has feelings and morals like the rest of us, at least until the point where he is pushed too far and is rejected and forced over the edge. That is when we see he has two sides, just like most humans (however this can also be considered a animalistic quality, another argument against him being a resemblence of a real human).

I am of the opinion that he deserved a chance, if not by mankind then at least by his creator. He had that right at least, being unwillfully brought into the world in such a sorry state. Instead he is pushed into sorry states of woe, and revengeful terpitude. Again, qualities of hateful, butter (often rejected) humans.

Again, i agree with your point to an extent, but remember there is always more to consider.

danjama
04-25-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The truth is, we should only judge people when we know them.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yep, for sure. and thats the nub of it.

Sometimes though I will cross the street because of what someone looks like even if I don't know em. I suppose that has got more to do with overall appearence though rather than how ugly or attractive someone is,, and stereotyping.

Program on British Tv the other day about a bloke looking at pictures of womens faces and grading them on attractiveness. What he didn't know was that before being shown the faces some of them were altered. The testers had put some of his own facial characteristics in.

Not quite sure what the exact figures were but basically the tests showed we are atrracted to faces which are similar to our own,,,, man,, lol. Explains some of my past girlfiends </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it just me or do boyfriends often look like their girlfriends? Thats always been something ive noticed. Of course there were exception, otherwise we'd all be looking for people who look like us.

I am usually the one people try to avoid on the street, its not that im ugly or menacing, im actually a really nice, kind person, i just walk in an intimidating way (apparently). I dont mind it this way, im in less danger than the average person. But this goes to show that it is like Locust and I say.

Breeze147
04-25-2006, 08:31 AM
I ain't hangin' out with no ugly muthfuhs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

ploughman
04-25-2006, 08:34 AM
They did alot of that "what makes a partner attractive" stuff at the University of St Andrews.

Aspects folk appreciated were visual symetry in another's features. No two halves of a face are actually symetrical but the closer the better. Them not being taller than you (or your mum) if you're a bloke. Them looking like your mum (if you're a bloke) was a big if worrying positive. Other factors were related to how you assesed yourself, if you thought you were just gorgeous and scored a Spinal Tapping 11/10 on the lucious scale then you tended to be attracted to total babes. If you rated yourself a 7/10 then you tended to go for people you also rated as a 7/10. Interesting eh. Some blokes were dogs though and would just chase anything. Takes all sorts.

Friendly_flyer
04-25-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesn€t conform to what society expects. or is he not?!


Actually no, he won€t. There are a few examples of feral children. The by far best documented case is Amala and Kamala, the girls brought up by wolfs in India. Even though the where €œrescued€ at a very young age (about 1 and 8 respectively), the never became €œhuman€ as you and I understand it. Amala died very early, but Kamala was apparently partially tameable, like a wolf pup of comparable age.

Being human is about more than standing on two legs (something Kamala never fully mastered anyway) and having a brain the size of two pints or more. It is a matter of how you use that brain. If you aren€t given a few key impulses at the right period in life, you€ll never be fully human.

This is not unique to humans. A lot of the behaviour we normally associate with certain animals (mammals in particular) is learned behaviour. More over, it is behaviour that must be learned at certain stages in life, sometimes by a flock. This is why you can€t just put zoo animals into the wild. For some of the large apes we can to a limited degree teach them to become wild again (like they do with orang-utans), but for wolves, elephants and other rather brainy social species, they need to grow up with their kind to become a fully functional member of their species.

Then, what is a feral child if not human? There is some food for thought.

danjama
04-25-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesn€t conform to what society expects. or is he not?!


Actually no, he won€t. There are a few examples of feral children. The by far best documented case is Amala and Kamala, the girls brought up by wolfs in India. Even though the where €œrescued€ at a very young age (about 1 and 8 respectively), the never became €œhuman€ as you and I understand it. Amala died very early, but Kamala was apparently partially tameable, like a wolf pup of comparable age.

Being human is about more than standing on two legs (something Kamala never fully mastered anyway) and having a brain the size of two pints or more. It is a matter of how you use that brain. If you aren€t given a few key impulses at the right period in life, you€ll never be fully human.

This is not unique to humans. A lot of the behaviour we normally associate with certain animals (mammals in particular) is learned behaviour. More over, it is behaviour that must be learned at certain stages in life, sometimes by a flock. This is why you can€t just put zoo animals into the wild. For some of the large apes we can to a limited degree teach them to become wild again (like they do with orang-utans), but for wolves, elephants and other rather brainy social species, they need to grow up with their kind to become a fully functional member of their species.

Then, what is a feral child if not human? There is some food for thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess they are mere mammals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Just with the ability to be alot mroe intelligent......

Good post. So at the least we are bioligically human no matter what, but it takes alot more than organs and a sleleton to make us "human".

Esel1964
04-25-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Esel1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Hi chaps and chapettes, how is everyone doing today?

I played some football and came home, then watched Ray (the film about Ray Charles). I'd seen it before anyway but i felt like watching it, it is a really good film. In fact, ive just been to the website on him and read his autobiography. It was quite deep and insightful. In fact most of the website is very interesting. Go and check it out here. (http://www.raycharles.com)

Being the weekend im in a very relaxed mood. I sat back on the sofa and muted the TV at 10.30, and just began to think randomly about stuff. Anyone else ever do that?!

We had quite a deep discussion in English Lit yesterday about what defines a human being (we're reading Frankenstein so it was quite relevant). In Frankenstein the "monster" is rejected by society and even by his creator. The truth is he is a human like everyone else; he has vices and virtues and at the tip of the iceberg he even feels emotions like a human(bad and good feelings), but society neglects him because he is ugly. I think it is a shame that society can be so shallow. This is even more true in this day and age compared to when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I winder how many people have missed out on great friends and happy relationships because they couldnt get past the looks. Looks dont make a person. What does then? Actions?! Is it purely a biological thing?! Surely a human raising himself in the wild is still a human, even though he doesnt conform to what society expects. or is he not?!

Its very difficult to decide on such things when there is so much to consider. I think actions are the defining thing when looking back on your life. What did you do? How did this change your life or anyon elses for the better? Actions speak volumes. When God judges you, he looks at your actions. In my opinion, if a wild man once helped a injured monkey to feed while he was on his death bed, by climbing and getting bananas for him, that is easily as good an action as a man starting his own business and employing thousands, many of whom have family. Its all very relative.

I guess you can easily dismiss this post as rambling, but at the very least i hope ive given you all something to think about. Sometimes i just think random stuff like this.

I don't want to come across as a hardass,and I mean no disrespect to anyone;but y'all need to turn down the Ravi Shankar,and stop burning so much pachoulli incense on this thread.

I know "Frankenstein" was fiction,but you're applying human empathy and morals to a non-human object.It's not about appearance,it's about the reaction of people to a reanimated conglomeration of their DEAD fellow villagers.

Frankenstein was made from parts of dead people,making him a collection of human parts-NOT a human.Humans have individual DNA,the monster would be a DNA clusterf@#* -unhuman,therefore,not worthy of 'human moral' consideration.
Just because you feel bad for something,doesn't make it worthy of 'moral' debate.

Oh,and a truly "wild" man.would see the wounded monkey as prey(food),that's how nature works;nature doesn't care about what's moral or immoral.

Now,after all that Danjama-please don't think I'm attacking you,I'm just pointing a few things out in a friendly way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif
Regards,M8

P.S. Almost forgot to mention this,if you're considering the feelings/emotions of a 'monster',how about the emotions/feelings of the families whose loved ones were dug up to build him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, i appreciate what you saying, but you are looking at Frankenstein at face value. You can choose to look at it in another way: the literature way if you will....

Frankenstein was a study of human nature, and how far it could be pushed into accepting things out of the norm. It was a very contemporary idea for its time period; the idea of ideas being forced onto people by society, and making ill judgements, which is what people do when they meet the monster.

Your idea of him being truly something unhuman is not wrong by any means, as of course he is made from many different humans, but the book causes us to debate this issue. He has feelings and morals like the rest of us, at least until the point where he is pushed too far and is rejected and forced over the edge. That is when we see he has two sides, just like most humans (however this can also be considered a animalistic quality, another argument against him being a resemblence of a real human).

I am of the opinion that he deserved a chance, if not by mankind then at least by his creator. He had that right at least, being unwillfully brought into the world in such a sorry state. Instead he is pushed into sorry states of woe, and revengeful terpitude. Again, qualities of hateful, butter (often rejected) humans.

Again, i agree with your point to an extent, but remember there is always more to consider. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK,given the literary angle you mentioned,I'm with you on that one then.

CapBackassward
04-26-2006, 07:30 PM
Actually, there has been a good modern treatment of the Frankenstein story by Ridley Scott, albeit a futuristic twist about humans creating humans. The Movie 'Bladerunner' based on the Philip K. **** SF novel 'Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep.'

Arguably one of the best SF movies ever. Lots of great socialogical questions ask by this movie. Man playing God. i.e. The creation of human life. Man's incessant need to tamper with nature.


Rick

CapBackassward
04-26-2006, 07:32 PM
Wow! It filterd out Philip K's last name. It starts with a D and rymes with hick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Rick

Siwarrior
04-27-2006, 12:16 AM
wow i figured out that just because my pc has blown up doesn't mean that i can't do things that are more fun.......................