Human Nature
The other day, in my Quest class once again, we were discussing the story of Adam and Eve. Some students proposed that it was a story of humans losing their innocence and bringing sin into the world. Some said that humans are naturally bad and have to work to be good while animals are naturally good, but none of the arguments seemed to nip it for me. I got myself to thinking. The heart of the matter seems to be that it is illustrating the difference between humans and animals. The snake doesn't seem to have a choice in the story, he simply plays a role. His role is to be the temptations. The human does have a choice. They can choose to either take the fruit or leave it. I think the largest difference here is that humans have choice while animals don't. Each animal is intrinsically good, or mean, or aggressive, or reclusive. Humans are not intrinsically anything. Anybody with me on this? Arguments for or against? Is what makes humans human having choice and the responsibility for our actions that result therefrom it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think animals specifically do what they need to do to do to survive, while humans possess greed and excessiveness. Ultimately boiling down to the soul, do animals really possess one? I doubt it, because it seems that almost every action from an animal is an instinct rather than choice, they get done what needs to be done. The human lingers on choice, on what they need or want or can or can't have. they also linger on idea, what if this what if that, in regards to choices. i think it kind of goes with descartes 'i think therefore i am.' we are different from animals in that were are 'thinking things' whereas animals are instinctive maybe?? idk this isnt my cup of tea but it is interesting.
Post a Comment