Man is permitted from the beast.
In one of the columns (I don’t remember which one) you addressed the issue of what is permissible for man compared to animals. Among other things, in relation to emotion/will/choice, etc.
Yuval Noah Harari usually repeats one central idea in his books:
The key difference between humans and other creatures is their ability to imagine, create, and share stories and abstract concepts. While other animals can communicate about tangible realities, such as danger or food, humans are able to believe and make others believe in ideas that do not physically exist – such as money, laws, countries, religions, and human rights.
What do you think about this idea? It seems he is right,
The question is whether it is exhaustive on a philosophical level and can it actually be assumed that a human being is indeed no different from an animal except in the fact that he tells stories and exchanges ideas that are judged on a social and cultural level?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps it was a mistake to quote Y.N. Harari, who is commonly condemned and rejected (he bought it honestly, one must say).
But this approach is very popular among historians and intellectuals.
In my opinion, it is very significant in this discussion, and I reject your claim that this "thought" is insignificant.
There is a situation where it is all a matter of basic assumptions.
What Harari presents assumes an evolutionary-materialistic approach.
If you assume that man is simply a sophisticated animal, man is an animal that has evolved.
To claim that what separates him from the beast is culture, information, communication, and culture sounds very reasonable.
(You yourself did not accept divisions related to intellectual ability, etc.)
But this was rejected out of hand, because you assume dualism?
And if some thought is accepted by other people, does it become an argument? You fall into ad hominem/populum again and again here.
I don't see what I'm supposed to do here. Anyone who assumes that there is no soul, no morality, no free will, and no distinction between man and beast will indeed conclude that there is no distinction between man and beast.
I'm done.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
