The Beast wrote: ↑April 1st, 2022, 10:13 am
Whether pragmatism has any bearing on humans over the ants is debatable. The debate starts with the assumption that the spirit of revenge and the thought of revenge are two different things. From here and maybe so we might have the definition of sin. I might stablish that a lion has no thought process, but it has instinct. This “present” evolved capacity is the mechanism that enable the lion to defeat the hyenas. It is obvious that human thought can train instinct to become a polished spirit. A polished spirit could make war more “human.” As we choose one to many, many to one, one to one or one is, it is “all” clearer. Can we ever say human and predator in a sentence? It takes free will.
"Can we ever say human and predator in a sentence?" Yes! You just did in your question about them.
" A polished spirit could make war more “human.” As we choose one to many, many to one, one to one or one is, it is “all” clearer"
You mean a "fair" war in the sense without bringing modern tech into the play? Are the "ones" you mention people?
"The debate starts with the assumption that the spirit of revenge and the thought of revenge are two different things. From here and maybe so we might have the definition of sin. I might stablish that a lion has no thought process, but it has instinct. "
Not sure if the debate starts with this assumption. Aren't the spirit of revenge and the thought of revenge different things? You can feel to take revenge without thinking about it. Or not? Do both tandem along happily (or unhappily...). What's the connection with free will and determinism?And how fits sin in?