Is being human rising above the biology within or accepting and giving in to it?

[iii@mander.xyz]

This post did not contain any content.

[theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world]

Being human is making the choice

[flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz]

I'd say neither and both. Our biology allows us a very wide range of behaviors, and all those are natural for us. For a lot of human behaviors it's impossible to claim it's "natural" or "instinctive" for humans, because immediately someone is going to come up with a counterexample.

So to summarize - our natural biological state is to have a wide, chaotic, sometimes contradictory range of behaviors.

[iii@mander.xyz]

Playing the meta game. When making the choice, should you follow reason or instinct?

[theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world]

It dependsssssssss.

[nemo@slrpnk.net]

Being human is about the human condition. The struggle between instinct and ethic is a part of that, but not all of it. This is because humanity is social, not individual. It is in how we treat others that we display our humanity, or pack thereof.

[argumentativemonotheist@lemmy.world]

Why would accepting our natural desires necessarily mean just giving in to them, if that's what you're expressing in OP? Virtue and eudaimonia lies somewhere in the middle and requires discernment.

[maeve@kbin.earth]

Look at the world around you, then ask yourself this question.

[whatgodismadeof@feddit.org]

Oh I get it. Make money ufck bishes?

[iii@mander.xyz]

An anthropophobe will never be human?

[angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com]

Rising above. That's the part that's unique to humans (maybe not entirely but acutely so)

[iii@mander.xyz]

I think most people live instinctively. But to me, they seem very animal like.