the archives

dusted off in read-only


Spoiler! Kellhus posted 11 Apr 2007, 11:04 by Sokar, Auditor

Again Spoiler!!!! Anyway..I was recently wondering about one thing about Kellhus..and I am not sure whether I should post this here or in the other threads... It seems better suited here as it is not really a question on the book itself.. If it is wrongly placed, I suppose the mods or admins can move it... To the point, Kellhus seems to get influence in the beginning of the series by simply stating some insight into human "soul" other words, he somehow convinces them that he can see through them and into them..he can feel them even and this in return, the idea of someone being able to feel your pain and thus elevate it and you, gives him followers and we know how that turns out eventually... In any case, my question is on this, I have personally experienced that knowing how people feel at certain moments, to understand them and especially to see through them gives a negative reaction. Although these people would gladly listen to you in the beginning and even admire you for your insight, this admiration eventually turns into apathy of some sort, it is perhaps too much to bare someone knowing you too well... Now to more theoretical, profound and 'scholarly' level. There is something of Nietzsche in "Beyond Good and Evil" ยง 290: [quote:k1rkp0e9] "Every profound thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter may hurt his vanity, but the former his heart, his sympathy, which always says: "Alas, why do you want to have as hard a time as I did?"" [/quote:k1rkp0e9] Nietzsche is too much of a discussion, but I always read the last sentece as this: "Alas, is there no one who truly feels me?" (I read the book in a different language, so I am not sure if this quote is completely correct. In my personal translation it says "as I DO"!) And by this I don't mean Nietzsche as personality, but all personalities, all people in other words have this idea of being misunderstood, or better put, not understood completely. Yes one understands that I am in pain, but not in what pain, yes emotional pain, but not of what emotion, yes it is love, but you wouldn't understand what kind of I unique!? Now take this into Bakker's triology, and we know that there is quite some Nietzsche in it. How does this fit in there. We have Achamian who in the end is in search what the Dunyan is etc.. So in other words he superceeds this level and goes against Kellhus. Yet, in this situation there is Esmi in play, so it does not necessarily mean that he is the profound thinker', rather that his 'passion rules the game'.. There are perhaps other possibilities, but I am not after looking into the book. What I wonder is how or why looking into the people and knowing their feelings makes them think as I described before..? What makes us feel as if we are unique, when it is clear that we are not..? What makes us want to live in pain and suffer the past as Nietzsche, rather than follow the likes of Kellhus and feel..? What, in very simply put words, are we afraid of..? view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 16:04 by Moigle90, Commoner

About the first part, I think people don't react negatively to how Kellhus "knows" them is because he knows exactly how to respond and what to say to move them, to make them feel better etc. Also I think people need to view themselves as unique because on some level we see the pettyness (word?) and ignorance in how others act and think and say to ourselves I'm not like that. So we tell ourselves we're different. And when someone comes along and claims to understand us, that kind of knocks us off that pedestal of superiority that we've created in our heads. I don't know. It's as if we'd rather be miserable and misunderstood for being more than everyone else than be understood and be just like the rest. view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 16:04 by Harrol, Moderator

Thanks Sokar. Now my head hurts. We do resent those that know us too well, atleast at times we avoid them. Why? we feel judged and undone in those areas, but what if the person did not make you feel judged in any way but made you feel accepted on all levels? I believe we fear judgement of others and that is why being understood is scarier than being misunderstood. view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 21:04 by Jamara, Auditor

As far as what Nietzsche was saying, I read it differently. He was speaking of profound thinkers. Thinkers who see what motivates the mundane, what moves the mundane. They feel more because they are able to reason more. And I think they pity more. And what he is saying is that people who truly understand those thinkers, will be able to experience these great depths of insight and emotion which eludes the rest of the populace (very arrogant, I know). And why would someone actively seek to understand someone like that when they themselves will be bound to feel those same truths. Don't forget, Nietzsche was a nihilist and a firm athiest. I don't think knowledge or 'truth' ever led him to anything emotionally uplifting. When seen through the eyes of an atheist, true knowledge of the world around us can be very depressing. Basically, I think he is pitying anyone who would leave their 'blissful ignorance' and begin experiencing the world in a more 'profound way.' And I think he is also saying that profound thinkers understand this and take pity on anyone trying to understand them. It breaks their heart to watch someone enter into this cold realm of profound thinking. view post

posted 12 Apr 2007, 09:04 by Randal, Auditor

Yes, that's how I read that passage too. view post

posted 29 Apr 2007, 11:04 by Sokar, Auditor

I agree with you mostly, but I think you are escaping the first part of the aphorism.. The profound thinker is afraid of his idea's being understood.. Yet it is not only the heart that is hurt, or at least not out of sympathy.. Nietzsche is quite contradictory here, as in other places he is quite opposed to sympathy, or at least in its religious sense..yet, I think all sympathy has a religious background.. I am not sure whether Nietzsche did also..I recollect reading how his 'sympathy' can be used differently in translations... In any case, Nietzsche's sympathy here is not a mere sympathy with the other, with the one who understands, rather it is a lost feeling.. It is being set alone without anyone to feel you.. view post

posted 01 May 2007, 09:05 by Randal, Auditor

I haven't read anything by Nietzsche except that quote, I admit. I do not see how sympathy has to be religious, though. I don't even see a connection with religion at all. Is that a meaning Nietzsche gives to the word? What is sympathy in the religious sense, and how does it differ from sympathy in the normal sense? But this potential confusion aside, I simply do not see any lament on loneliness in what you cite. If the complaint here is about loneliness, surely he would WANT to be understood, so that others might share his bewilderment and desolation? Surely he would not fear others joining him in his state of enlightenment? This is a lament, yes. A lost feeling, sure. But it is not being set alone without anyone to feel [for] you. It is not loneliness that is lamented, rather it is the loss of innocence, the loss of sheltering ignorance. Loneliness is perhaps a side-effect of this, but it is not the main problem or even mentioned at all in the text you cite. view post

posted 01 May 2007, 16:05 by Sokar, Auditor

This is one of the reasons one doesn't start a discussion on Nietzsche.. Anyway..sympathy and religion are one for two reasons... I don't think that I have to explain 'helping the fellow man' and such being a religious thing..and that this was encouraged by feelings of sympathy should be clear as well.. So here, sympathy is merely a tool for creating a mass... The second, sympathy is as well a tool for controlling that mass.. It advocates the way of life, not only the 'helping the fellow man', but also living to such and such conditions, undergoing these and those pains.. It becomes a power over thought and action. Indeed, religion does not have to be a classical religion in God, but also the modern variation, such as democracy or Human Rights.. It is a method inscribed to move the body and control the thought, or soul.. (This is not all from Nietzsche, rather a mould of authors I have read and who eventually made me think this is how one views sympathy :D ) Now the second part..Nietzsche does show this sorrow.. It is mostly in the language..the use of words: sympathy and heart..the distiction between him and the others, the thinker and the mundane..finally also the last sentence: "why do YOU want to have as HARD a time as I DO?" These all indicate his feeling of sorrow.. To see why Nietzsche would be opposed to being understood..his desolation and loneliness..opposition of enlightenment and would want to read his books... There is too much there to say about this. Now the final part..i wonder whether you are right..whether there is a certain priority to loss of 'blissful ignorance' rather than loneliness... Perhaps Nietzsche does want to show this..but then it would be a side-effect of loneliness.. The other way around! Otherwise it wouldn't fit into context of the book.... Final remark: "Truly I wonder whether not all words are written in shame!" or something like that..guess whose that is..? view post

posted 01 May 2007, 22:05 by Randal, Auditor

[quote:m7w5jvob]I don't think that I have to explain 'helping the fellow man' and such being a religious thing[/quote:m7w5jvob] Is that what Nietzsche says? I wouldn't agree. Helping the fellow man is a societal thing. Evolved because it makes the community stronger. Though I can see how Nietzsche would think otherwise given the knowledge of his times. view post

posted 02 May 2007, 10:05 by Sokar, Auditor

No..i don't recollect Nietzsche saying that explicitly..though it would defenately be his thought... We should not forget that prior to it becoming a societal thing, however, it was a religious doctrine..then again, our society is always based on religious 'values'..religion, after all, used to represent the society (which it still does to a certain extent).. Now that for you this religious doctrine has become a societal necessity (a stronger community)..and though you question the knowledge of the doesn't take away that the roots are still in religion... This can be a different discussion though..after all doesn't society base itself on many things from the passed..and how do we rightfully claim this not being a 'societal thing' even though its roots are religious..etc..etc... view post

posted 02 May 2007, 10:05 by Randal, Auditor

I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about the dawn of time when the proto-humans came out of Africa. I believe helping the fellow man was a societal need that was later reinforced and enforced by means of religion, not the other way around. See, religion does not create morality. Rather, it's used to enforce it. "If you steal, you'll go to hell." Or "If you attack a guest, you blaspheme against the sacred guest right and Apollo will strike you down." Those laws against stealing and attacking guests very likely predate the religious taboos. They exist for a reason, namely to make a society work. Society is not based on religious values... religious values are based on society. Mythical stories and legends and divine laws almost always work in the interest of the status quo. They describe why it is right and just that the world is as it is and that everybody should work to keep it so. After all, some basic elements of charity have been observed even among colonies of apes... those hardly have any religious motives to help the weaker members of the colony. (now, of course it's quite possible depending on your religion that you disagree with me. But equally, it should be obvious that "helping your fellow man" isn't universally seen as a religious thing.) view post

posted 02 May 2007, 14:05 by Sokar, Auditor

You are quite right there..we could confuse the cause and effect rather easily..especially in this case... Yet, before I give further comment, I would like to know where you think morality comes being enforced by whatever institution you must imply that it is either created naturally, out of necessity..or being created by a certain 'force' other than religion, which usually would be out of 'will to power' or domination... The reason I want to know this is that there lies the reason for morality, which you tackle slightly, yet I would like to have a somewhat more depth in your thought..before I comment on your previous remark.... (I am not sure if I have a religion..though if I do, it is defenately not one in any of the 'Gods'; though your point of 'helping the fellow man' is not necessarily religious is well taken..) view post

posted 02 May 2007, 15:05 by Randal, Auditor

My view is purely naturalistic. The way I see it, morality is a social and biological construct. It is not based on any outside "truth" or objective standard. Rather, it is something that evolved in our species. The biological part being empathy. People can to some extent feel or at least know what others feel. This makes morality possible, and this makes a society possible. I believe animals have this trait also, to different extends depending on species. The social part builds on this. A social grouping, like a tribe of primitive humans, can only work if people mind each other's feelings and obey certain rules and don't just work for their own selfish ends but also for the common good of all. And don't bash each other's skulls in when drunk. So rules are introduced. Taught from childhood on and reinforced by empathy, these become quite powerful a hold on people. Then, as society advances morality is reflected on. That's where philosophy and religion comes in. People start dressing the "why" in terms of divine commands or nobility of character, etc. The rules are also refined at this stage and start being applied more widely than just to your own immediate social grouping. The rules themselves also evolve as the societies do. What is good in a tribe of hunters may not be quite as practical in a city-dwelling people. I believe that this also explains why normal decent people can so very easily be made to hate and destroy those different from themselves, be it the neighbouring country or people worshipping a different god. Morality originally was something that applied to your own people only, everybody else was fair game. Empathy works on individuals, not crowds. It's very easy for humans to disregard the suffering of the many, suffering that is far away, or a combination thereof. I'll add as a disclaimer that this is all based on a layman's understanding of sociology and biology and mostly is distilled from a variety of sources into something that makes sense to me. I haven't given this a lot of thought or done much research and there quite possibly are some glaring errors in here. It sounds right to me, though. view post

posted 03 May 2007, 03:05 by Jamara, Auditor

Very nice post Randal. I was going to put in my two cents, but you pretty much covered it all. Well done. view post

posted 03 May 2007, 14:05 by Sokar, Auditor

Seeing that this is your view on the origins of morality, I see that we are in complete opposition.. Morality, in my view is not does not have a biological part..only a social one... That we empathise with our 'fellow man' is already an established morality in my is not an innate human nature..rather an established condition throughout the centuries... The social part is therefore not merely built on the biological here that morality originates in the first place..and indeed it does so out of necessity to make the community or grouping work... Here are of course some controversies again.. Freud thought that it was the pleasure instinct that made the primal father to subject his sons to work and toil..the argument goes further and further..but it is irrelevant now..the only thing imprtant here is that through this subjection laws arrise that restrict our sexuality and our pleasure instinct... Morality then, is a restriction on sexuality in order to make the community function.. Building on Freud, Marcuse tries to efface parts of these for example diminishing working hours and giving time for satisfaction of Eros etc..etc... Thus rules are indeed introduced in order not to bash each other's skulls in when drunk..but this is only a secondary objectives..for in the first place, they are in place merely out of satisfaction of the primal father..the toil that the sons undergo must be enforced by rules so that he can experience pleasure... I think, personally, that Foucault is much better here, he faces the problem without looking into an abstract society, rather finding historical 'facts', or rather his interpretations of them.. His [i:20y2rps8]Discipline and Punish[/i:20y2rps8] covers a certain study done by Kirchheimer (the study was done by two, I miss the first name and am not sure about the spelling of this one) who have found how laws have changed with the change of economy.. For example, modern laws are not necessarily less barbaric, though we have been taught this is not the will to punish less or in a more humane is rather the change in factors of economy and disciple that provide us with these new modes of punishment. Today, and this has been a prices since the French Revolution, we punish with a 'corrective measure', we demonise the punished without a view of damned, rather with a view of something going wrong and thus two ways we gain..we reintroduce the punished into the workforce..and we restrict the crime of multiplying..we 'condition' the bodies into such a way that they are willing to function to the will of the other..the state..or other authority... Compared to the previous punishment, for example slave economy..punishment was simply putting to work..there was no need for corrective measures as the punished was directly put into a workforce... In any case, after this long rambling, it is still unclear which is the cause and which the effect..does the society or grouping [u:20y2rps8]impose[/u:20y2rps8] morality, or is it simply [u:20y2rps8]enforcing[/u:20y2rps8] it to a higher degree... I think it is the first one..yet it is a necessary means to establishing a society..and although we are restricted in our acts it still keeps us from 'bashing each other's skulls in when drunk'... Morality, in other words, is a necessary is an imposition with an aim of control and it is a lie... To live without it is a possibility..but I am not advocating that change as I have no alternative in mind yet... PS As you see there is no Nietzsche in here, since I have to read his [i:20y2rps8]Genealogy of Morals[/i:20y2rps8]..though I really wish to at some point... Further, I am not claiming to be right here and you being wrong..neither trying to convince you of me being right... It is just as you, a rambling on the books I have read, which have put me into this state of mind... view post

posted 03 May 2007, 16:05 by Randal, Auditor

Well, empathy is natural. We know where in the brain it is. We can cut it out of people if we want. It's been researched. People with certain types of brain damage lose their sense of empathy. (and of course you have sociopaths who don't have it in the first place) Empathy as a social construct doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't fit the evidence. As for the rest of your post... as far as I can follow it, the Freud part sounds like bollocks to me. Where does he get his "prime father" and "pleasure instinct" from? Sounds like he made it up on the spot. (and isn't Freud considered obsolete anyway? His sex-obsession shows in everything he writes including this.) view post

posted 03 May 2007, 17:05 by Sokar, Auditor

Most of Freud is ineed bollocks..i don't agree with most of his writing and especially metapsychology... That's the reason I put Foucualt in it..which is more interesting to read, but also 'historical'.. :D And as far as I know he is not deemed obsolete..perhaps some of his theories... (He thought that women smoking cigarettes were doing so thinking of a penis, so I see where he went wrong) In any event, even though I doubt the primal father and his will for timeless pleasure, I do agree with the restriction of sexuality through morality..for the purpose of the functioning of the community... That empathy can be found in the brain I simply didn't know..that's not my field of interest... But this still doesn't take away the argument I propose..just needs a revision.. Even if empathy is biological, morality does not have to be..the link you make is of course plausible..but not necessarily true... I'll have to think more on the issue.. (Besides I wonder what else we can find in human brain, thirst for blood perhaps..?) Also..since you tackle come they don't have it..? In other words, how do we get the biological substance in our brain..? and how can be sure that this biological substance does not come existence through community..? After all, there are plenty biological substances that come after certain activities..thus being natural..but not necessarily present... view post

posted 03 May 2007, 20:05 by Randal, Auditor

It's not a "biological substance" as such. More of a way the brain's wired. Instinct, if you will. Sociopaths don't have it for the same reason some people are born without arms or with three legs or with autism. They're birth defects. As to how we got it in the brain... undoubtedly it evolved. I don't know which animals have it and how much. Fish have no empathy, apes do seem to have it. But it evolved somewhere along the road. It's a very useful talent. view post

posted 04 May 2007, 12:05 by Sokar, Auditor

Again..since my knowledge on biology is rather limited.. Could we say that this substance has evolved due to our being in a community for centuries..millenia..? In other words..did we acquire this biological trait because we already live a community..or was it ever present and drove us, in a sense, to live together..? view post

posted 04 May 2007, 14:05 by Jamara, Auditor

Sokar, I agree that morality plays a role in us being a societal species, but that does not mean it does not have "natural" origins. The fact that we evolved as a social species is in itself "natural". Social groupings are not the sole constructs of man. The hierarchy within a pack of wolves is quite complex. Dolphin and whale pods are quite complex in their social interaction with one another. Elephant herds are extremely close knit groups of complex social order. Or how about the meerkats who look out for one another while they eat and play? Social orders exist in many mammal species. "Morality", to me, is essentially the instinctual failsafe for ensuring the survival of the species' evovled social order. Human sentience has allowed us to expound on "morality" because we can ask why and we can make a conscious decision to go against our "morality." We can choose to do something which we feel is "wrong." I think our ability to go against our natural morality has led many to view it as a human construct (similar to say traffic laws which we choose to follow). view post

posted 04 May 2007, 15:05 by Sokar, Auditor

I'm simply trying to find more on the subject..not disputing natural morality as such.. While looking through my notes on Marcuse I have found that I touch on the subject of 'natural morality' myself.. Though I am looking at it in a non-biological sense.. I have never said that social groupings are constructions of man, or that communities are unnatural.. My question here is more of what do we perceive as natural at this point..that compassion 'is biological' is a given..but how does this biological trait come to existence..? view post

posted 04 May 2007, 20:05 by Jamara, Auditor

"Natural Compassion" is almost uniquely a mammalian trait. It derives from the fact that we bear live young which are not mature enough to care for themselves. They must be nurtured into maturity (albeit some quicker than others). I believe it is that nurturing process which has led to morality. It is the fundamental (in my oppinion) drive of all mammals to raise the young. And when this sense of nurturing is so strong, it many times leads to a sense of nurturing not only the offspring, but the rest of your society. On an interesting related side note, all mammals have evolved an interesting nurturing characteristic. And it IS held by all mammals. And that trait is that our offspring have features which trigure that nurturing/compassionate side in all of us (and I'm not just speaking of humans here). Didn't you ever wonder why when you saw a puppy, or a kitten, or a baby elephant, or a baby squirrel, or a fawn, or a cub, etc... you automatically thought it was cute? That's biology. We, almost every single mammal species, are driven by a nurturing drive to care for the young of nearly any mammal. It is quite odd, and not unique to humans. Often times the adult of one species will raise the offspring of a different species. It is just mammalian nature to nurture. And even though birds nurture their young (in most cases) how often do you consider immature birds cute (I can only think of three species). I just always thought that was interesting. view post

posted 06 May 2007, 13:05 by Sokar, Auditor

Of always..i don't agree... The Greek God Chronos used to eat his own children because of a prophecy that one of them will take his power.. This would mean that the nurturing instinct is primarily female! As for the man, this 'nurture instict' would mean a subjection to the younger son.. Freud, of course, connected this to sex..but it doesn't have to be :D In any case, similar things can be seen in lion packs..where the son takes over the pack for his own purpose and leaves the 'father lion' in complete idle state..or indeed, nurturing the young ones... But not out of his own will! Another example would be the Spartan state..or the nomadic 'states'..where children are either thrown off the cliffs or left behind for their uselessness.. The nurture instinct, as you describe it so far, cannot be a biological trait for compassion.. So far, it seems a necessity! (For what exactly?) On the other hand, I still say that I don't know enough on the subject itself, so I can't really counter your statement..perhaps you have other examples.... view post

posted 06 May 2007, 21:05 by Randal, Auditor

[quote:vixmcmtx]The nurture instinct, as you describe it so far, cannot be a biological trait for compassion.. [/quote:vixmcmtx] It still can be. Things just aren't simply as clear-cut as all that. Other instincts are at work too. And lions, as far as I know, are rather rare among mammals in killing the young of its own species and google suggests there are rather specific circumstances accounting for this, namely the lion's evolutionary desire to reproduce overriding a nurturing instinct. Children being left behind if deemed too weak to survive is another very reasonable instinct that doesn't override the desire to nurture. It simply limits it, to prevent energy being wasted on those who would die anyway. (this is fairly common among animals. You can see it with litters of young cats sometimes, where mothers refuse to nurse the young) Just because the nurturing instinct isn't always the sole or indeed most powerful motivator doesn't mean it isn't present and important and can lead to compassion. I don't know either whether it's stronger in women or not, but it's definitely present in men also. The point is rather that without empathy and compassion, one cannot nurture effectively. How else to recognise the wants of one's ofspring? And how to make it sufficiently imperative to act upon them immediately? And once compassion exists, it's quite easy to extend it to a community and then wider still, and expand it into morality. After all, it has distinct benefits for society as a whole. [quote:vixmcmtx]So far, it seems a necessity! (For what exactly?) [/quote:vixmcmtx] Of course it's a necessity. For the survival of the species, of course! Without nurture, the young do not live. By the way, I should note that I agree wholeheartedly with Jamara's previous posts. (which leads to the situation of the two of us ganging up on you a bit, Sokar. Sorry about that) I should also note that I have the sneaking suspicion that he/she knows rather more about this subject than I do. For me, it's mostly common sense and observation talking. And out of curiosity, Jamara, what are those three species of baby birds that are considered cute? Ducks and related waterfowl would be one, I can safely say. Baby ducks are always a big hit with children, and they do look very cute. (I can safely attest after spending half the week-end taking my niece to feed the ducks) Whaddayacallits, young chickens (chicks? chicklets?) would probably be another. As for other species... I just think we don't often see their young. Not sure a young dove or blackbird would be considered un-cute by humans. view post

posted 07 May 2007, 14:05 by Sokar, Auditor

Randal -> If other instincts are also involved..then without disputing natural morality, one can argue that the inforcement of 'Religious Morality' into the society (the compassionate fellow man) is to be disregarded as such. The society might indeed function better by (re)inforcement of such values as morality..yet it does not have to be - one loses sight of what is natural and what is other words one is forced into a certain thought without realising this force! The other insticts..Eros ke Thanatos..are left to the 'immoral'..they lose their value in that given society and the subsequent societies build on this mere compassionate moral doctrine.. (I am not saying this is necessarily a bad is merely a given direction not a chosen one..neither a willed one - thus it dissolves or even eliminates the other instincts and societies built on these instincts) As it goes for men or women having a dominant nurture is recognised that women have a different perception than men (when monitoring the brain in some way) when they see a picture of a baby.. Yet, I have heard (thus am not sure) of tribes in Asia where the men nurture the children and the women go to work.. (this also supposedly happened prior to the domination of man over woman in the ancient times) In these societies the men would probably have a different perception than the women if shown a picture of a baby.. What I am trying to show is that an established society has or creates a certain biological is not necessarily 'naturally' present there but is a mere reflection... Compassion does indeed exist..and indeed it is natural..but is an inforcement of history! On necessity I still have to think about..not a clear thought yet.... Finally..i don't mind you two ganging will only lead to more discussion in this lately dead forum.... view post

posted 08 May 2007, 01:05 by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Randal":4bvm03h8] And out of curiosity, Jamara, what are those three species of baby birds that are considered cute? Ducks and related waterfowl would be one, I can safely say. Baby ducks are always a big hit with children, and they do look very cute. (I can safely attest after spending half the week-end taking my niece to feed the ducks) Whaddayacallits, young chickens (chicks? chicklets?) would probably be another. As for other species... I just think we don't often see their young. Not sure a young dove or blackbird would be considered un-cute by humans.[/quote:4bvm03h8] Correction, four. I hadn't thought abput baby ducks. My three were baby chickens, baby wild turkeys, and baby pheasants/quail. I do find it odd though that they are all considered fowl. view post

posted 08 May 2007, 01:05 by anor277, Didact

@Jamara, I have never seen a baby wild turkey (searching internet rapidly!). Cygnets and goslings are cute little things too. Baby snakes/crocodiles/sharks???? yuck. And regarding the mammalian propensity to nuture I do take your point that we seem to be hard-wired to find certain things appealing (when otherwise they are dirty, smelly, and very demanding). Mind you the young of non-placental mammals (when just born) are definitely not cute - give them a few months though. view post

posted 08 May 2007, 04:05 by Jamara, Auditor

Well, I agree that a baby snake might be cute, but it's only because it is a minature version of the adult. It's just tiny. But the difference is that there are traits in most mammal young (physical characteristics) that trigure a nurturing response. These are things like large eyes or large heads. There is no real benefit to having these traits as an infant other than apparently the adults think its "cute". Just picture a kitten against an adult cat. Their heads and eyes and usually paws are larger proportionally, but their ears and tails are smaller. There is probably some scientific term for this trait, but I don't know what it is, so I just say cute. view post

posted 08 May 2007, 11:05 by Randal, Auditor

Curious. Must be a national thing... we don't have any baby turkeys around here, nor have I ever seen a baby pheasant. But tons and tons of baby ducks. (And baby moorhens. And the Eurasian Coot. Or so google tells me these birds are called in English.) Must be all the water around here. But yes, these too are all fowl. Curious indeed. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.