This makes no sense to me, this disapproval. What is this "animalistic" argument? It seems the only way to get around it is to start off by saying we should not be animals, not act like "animals", "savages", "inhuman" they say. We can not behave like other animals. Because we are different – we have different natural adaptations, one being community-life, other being culture. But we share so much, most of our attitudes and behaviors. I am an ape, a primate, a mammal, an animal. And is it not proper it be so? What should I be if I did not have an urge to eat, drink, be with those I am attracted to, stay alive, stay safe, and protect my kin? What should I be if I was not "animalistic"?
What should I be in this world? What would be my context, my reason for my being here on earth, if I was not "animalistic"? I would be so disconnected from every life form on this planet, I would feel so utterly meaningless… My fellow human beings are not enough. I need to feel I belong here, on this soil. And I do. I am like the ant I see on the garden, I am somehow like the ant. I am part of a far greater biological context. I feel at home, like this, "animalistic". No moral code that takes this away from us, this connection, this meaning, is legitimate. It aims at creating a vacuum, emptiness inside our minds without anything being particularly problematic about what we had! It is then that all those other "searches for fundamental meaning" come into scene, all the postulation of entities and supernatural forces at work. We are not simply searching for profound meaning then, we need to search for the most basic one! Because we are basically lost, because we are like a fish outside of water, a child taken away from home.
We are stardust, million year old carbon, we are golden. And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário