|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
( ElephantStone )
Guru
 Patron
|
     
My course for a degree in Archaeology is largely centred around prehistoric humans at the moment. For an essay I got a very interesting book, The Mind in the Cave, Lewis-Williams, D., 2002. It is a study of Upper-Palaeolithic cave art c.30,000BP But instead of studying the art as such, he studies how this art tells us fundamentally what it is to be human. What drove humans to paint? There is little argument against the fact that cave art was symbolic. Painting and symbolism is characteristic to humans. This separates us from the animals, even when we were living like animals, hunting and gathering. He very aptly states:
 These questions arent just about ancient history. they take us to the heart of what it is to be human today. It is not simply that we are more intelligent...On the contrary, the essence of being human is an uncomfortable duality of rational technology and irrational belief....The duality of human behaviour did not disappear...people were rational enough to travel to the moon and back and yet still irrational enough to believe in supernatural entities and forces that transcend, and in effect make nonsense of, all the laws of physics on which their moon journey depended.Does the human brain construct spaceships and the human mind fashion unseen forces and spirits? What is the difference between the mind and the brain?
So what he is saying is, the human brain changes from generation to generation, but the mind stays the same. We have the same mind that those people who ventured into caves do 30,000 years ago to paint figures on the walls. It is understanding the mind that tells us who we are. Just an interesting point I thought Id put out there for discussion. Edit: extension to quote Post edited at 3:38 am on Oct. 20, 2008 by ElephantStone
-------
Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?
|
|
|
whoami111
Soothsayer
|
Yeah we still think the same way even though our technology has advanced so far and we get more intelligent. We still imagine, some of us still strive for dominance, and we are still selfish beings. But I don't think that separates us from animals because then again doesn't most animals think like that minus the imagination part?
-------
Anyone can make great ideas, but it does not make
them a genius; true geniuses proves his ideas works.
|
2:51 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 | Joined: Sep. 2007 | Days Active: 425
Join to learn more about whoami111 California, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 7,999 | Points: 12,338
|
|
| |
|
|
Vordhosbn
Quality Control Engineer
|
wow that's a very interesting way of looking at it. i'd never considered it like that. i'd say that the most obvious thing that separates us from other animals is our social construct. our customs, traditions, ethics, etc that have evolved are far beyond anything we see elsewhere. but i guess when you look at it with the views presented in your quote, we aren't much more than an elaborate pack of wolves, with imagination and irrationality. this irrationality you mentioned is what has lead to much of our ethics, traditions, spirituality, and so on. we also have an appreciation for the passage of time. we have a desire to remember and understand the past, and to imagine the future. we are overtly aware of our own mortality, which i guess could be what has led to this irrationality, religion, etc.
-------
In the world we must seek, love is purged of the instinct for domination.
-- Bertrand Russel, Proposed Roads to Freedom
|
|
|
|
|
morik
Dairy Product Addict
|
Culture. That is what separates us from other species. As soon as we learned to smudge a face on a cave wall and develop different grunt noises for "food" or "tiger!" we were well on the way.
For a brilliant theory on how we started and paint and suddenly exolve so quickly read pretty much any books co-authored by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.
"Figments of reality: the evolution of the curious mind" is certainly my favourite. Also "Science of the Discworld 2: the globe" is brilliant. (don't worry if you don't like discworld - you can simply skip the chapters written by terry pratchett)
I did a paper on the development of the human mind, art, language and culture and those two books were a fantastic source for me to agree/disagree with.
|
6:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008 | Joined: June 2008 | Days Active: 121
Join to learn more about morik England, United Kingdom | Straight Male | Posts: 1,087 | Points: 2,331
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackadder
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 2:06 pm on Oct. 28, 2008
culture's a very broad term...
we know we have 'culture', but what is it, really? art? music? - why do we make art and music? why do see beauty in something practically useless? tradition?
ritual? wow. 1 in the morning here and my brain is mush 
There are, I'll have you know, several theories of art that would strongly take issue with your suggestion that 'art is not useful'. furthermore, culture is not limited to its art(s) (music tends to fall under the art catagory).....you totally forgot to mention that some other, rather important criteria: Customs/traditions/ 'ways of doing things'
History
Moral values
Beliefs (e.g religion, 'free speech', justice)
politics
its agents and systems (e.g Police, law courts, government)
the role of its members (e.g is it a "collectivist", culture of one where every member does best for and by themselves (individualist))
With this all said, I'm not sure culture is unique to humans, several species of ape (and probably a number of other animals), seem to have a culture in some sense.
-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.
|
|
|
TRIPonME
Dairy Product Addict
 Sustainer
|
Quote: from Blackadder at 4:22 pm on Oct. 28, 2008
Quote: from Vordhosbn at 2:06 pm on Oct. 28, 2008
culture's a very broad term...
we know we have 'culture', but what is it, really? art? music? - why do we make art and music? why do see beauty in something practically useless? tradition?
ritual? wow. 1 in the morning here and my brain is mush
There are, I'll have you know, several theories of art that would strongly take issue with your suggestion that 'art is not useful'. furthermore, culture is not limited to its art(s) (music tends to fall under the art catagory).....you totally forgot to mention that some other, rather important criteria: Customs/traditions/ 'ways of doing things'
History
Moral values
Beliefs (e.g religion, 'free speech', justice)
politics
its agents and systems (e.g Police, law courts, government)
the role of its members (e.g is it a "collectivist", culture of one where every member does best for and by themselves (individualist))
With this all said, I'm not sure culture is unique to humans, several species of ape (and probably a number of other animals), seem to have a culture in some sense.
It seems to be that the "cultural" activities listed are those that are not required for survival but rather machinations that contribute to our lives as a social species. The same probably applies to other animals--like monkeys--with high level of intelligence (esp. social intelligence). But then what criteria are we to suggest to discriminate human culture from those of other animals? Are they fundamentally the same...arising from the part of the brain we share with animals...and different just in the complexity of our traditions? Or are humans really special? =)
-------
Read what's up there ^, not here!
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
541 users online 
211041 members 
You have 1 new message.
