What isthe wild state of the human being? Unadulterated with the trappings of language, culture, and technology; what would we be like, how?
would we live our lives?
- peter mLv 61 month ago
It would certainly be extreme.. without (trappings of) a reasonable extent
of language, culture & technology.
Would the brutish or savage people really be willing to defend their own-
worse-case-scenario against outsiders & foreigners?
A case can obviously be made in favour of either which way.
We now it seems have the benefit of looking subjectively
at history^ & asking Do we have enough good language (=
do we need more education like Philosophy-of-language
for instance ?) Do we want to see our culture diluted with
foreign immigrants & workers ?
Do we want more & more technology to take over & do manual
jobs ? Do we want more technology to control the freedom
that humans have now ?
What we do know objectively is that past peoples -Mankind-
past peoples very much like us would likely NOT HAVE
MADE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, emergent (Emergency)
MISTAKES that have become our human burden..
So under the "twin banners" of Progress-in-knowledge &
of progress-of-Philosophy (as one current part or established
sector of modern knowledge) we have to decide.. WAS IT WORTH IT ?
And although the consensus could be sure enough that
"it was" or "it is"....nevertheless that could change tomorrow,
(in the present*).. "wisely or in the only adulterated reasonable way."
^ especially see "historicist philosophy which COVERTLY
or "inductively" seeks to push any subjective agenda for
any-or-NO Aim (their own Individual &/or their group
state or status. E.g. any individual or President or any
group of workers who don't want environmental protest
to affect their work... with the subsequent "false dreams
of job/income security" etcetera).
* 2020 A.D.Source(s): Training & coursework in the History of Ideas / Objective philosophy
- grey_wormsLv 71 month ago
we can't separate one from the other.
- j153eLv 71 month ago
The early forms of human being were, according to modern anthropology, rather like Hobbes' "nasty and brutish." A Romantic fallacy was to project wishful thinking of "idyllic noble savages." Only the "savage" part is now considered accurate.
Experiments on modern humans, e.g. giving children two types of uniforms, etc., finds the formerly sociable humans swiftly dividing into armed camps.
- LizLv 51 month ago
Perhaps like the childlike people that H.G.Wells found when he time traveled - the Eloi's (spelling)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Mr. SmartypantsLv 71 month ago
The 'trappings' (good word!) have changed us in ways that we now would do very badly without them. The 'agricultural revolution' happened about 10,000 years ago, and for hundreds of thousands of years before that we traveled around in tribes, without language or civilization. But even then we had technology that had taken thousands of years to develop. Our bodies haven't really changed that much since our hunter-gatherer days. We're still adapted to the same diet.
But I don't think modern man could survive in those conditions. We have smaller muscles, less body hair, smaller teeth, etc.