wow
the sociobiological view point is pretty damn stupid  the things we do for fun are so diverse, and neither do they automatically make us 'friendly' or even 'attractive' or even 'social'. they don't have help us survive the least
human beings are creative and emotional people, we have a desire to be individuals and to express our free will. its pathetic always trying to explain with survival or sex. just accept you are an emotional and free willed being.
Okay... So I might've gone a bit too far with that.
So let's clear up some misconceptions (that I have brought upon myself, sadly)...
On the deepest level we are biological machines. We are the survival mechanisms for our genes.
HOWEVER... We humans have evolved. We have developed huuuge brains. And with those brains, we have 'transcended' our biological heritage, so to say. In stead of mindlessly attending our emotions and our primal instinctive drives, we now have a way to keep them at bay. We now have a way to contemplate them, even, and search for the best course of action, even if it goes against our primal drives. We have now even come to a point where survival isn't an everyday care anymore, so we can do hobbies now. At least more so than in the past.
Now... About that emotional and free will part: I'm not saying at all that we AREN'T emotional or free willed.. I'm just saying that somewhere in the line, there's a survival aspect involved. And if we are to look at the purpose of everyday life, it is (mainly) to survive (again: school, jobs, etc.).
So yeah... True, we are biological machines developed to survive, but again: we have transcended this level of mindlessness. We have acquired ratio. And WITH that we have gained a certain point where we can actually keep our primal drives at bay, where we can express ourselves differently, where we can judge things, etc.
Still: if you were to look at even psychology, you WILL find that many, MANY things, including emotions, friends, violence, etc. can be deduced to a more survivalistic purpose, to a more individualistic purpose (yes, even behavior in car-driving can be deduced to this level).
If you look at a person having a fight with another person, for example, he is clearly angered by that person. Why? Because he feels threatened by his target (ultimate deduction: survival chance has been brought down). He feels that either his personal value, or those of his friends or his family have been lowered. OR he has been stolen from (personal possessions --> recources --> higher chance of survival). And he does not accept that. He will try to gain more self-value, by lowering the value of the person that he's having a fight with, eliminating him as a threat.
Indeed, if you look at even the situation at home (how that person has been raised, and how the family condition was), you will see that most aggressive persons would have had a low value forced onto them (they were beaten, cursed at, or simply hadn't been paid much attention to). This urges them to acquire a higher one, by looking for trouble, and 'artificially' raise their own by lowering others (for example).
Also: please note that while our culture has evolved at an EXTREMELY fast rate, biological evolution is SO slow that our biological brain is still adapted, and wired to the time when we were 'cave-men', so to say... This is why we still have those ultimate survivalistic drives. We simply haven't evolved to be comfortable in this society... This, again, explains much phenomena such as violence, shyness, friendliness.
Also: we don't have a totally free will. The genes are the blueprints of our bodies, and therefore, the blueprints of our brain. So somewhere, those genes have had an impact inside our brains as well.
Therefore: one person will be more tempted to do one thing, while the other is more tempted to do the other, just as one person has blue eyes, and the other one has brown. All thanks to the genes that make up how our brains will look like... The size of the brain, the sizes of the areas of the brain, the structures, etc. Homosexual people do not have a real choice. This has been repeatedly studied, and it is a nice example. Their brain structures as well as certain genetic and cellular structures are different from those of heterosexual people. They can do it with women, but it just goes against their biological yearning. So: you could, technically speaking call this 'free choice'... But is it really?
Aside from the genes and the brain, you should not forget to, again, also include the cultural influences and the way we are raised, as this also hugely impacts our rationale. Just look at fundamentalist muslims (just an easy example as we've all seen these... haven't we?)... They have been raised in such a way to behave like they do. Their brains have been shaped in such a way that they behave like they do, and therefore their free will has been manipulated. Tampered with. That is not to say that they can't act differently, that they can't think differently. It's just that their ability to do so has been severely decreased, and that they'd have to 'rewire' their brain someway or another to stop doing what they do. Again: even though this is totally possible, we can't really talk about free will here, anymore, can we?
So: NO-ONE has an absolute free will... Not even the nihilist of the child, the Übermensch, who has de-attached herself from the bonds of religion and culture, and who 'just accepts things as they are', simply because she would still have genes, she would still have experiences to shape their thinking process, and she would still be biological machines that'd be like any other animal on this planet: a survivalist...
|
|
Bookmarks