B to the S Thread.
OK Senna, I'll take a swing at the philosophy pitch. I'm procrastinating on this work project charter... maybe I'll start after I finish this post.
I agree. To me this means "you are the sum of your actions". Our 'nature', while we believe we have a good idea of it, is still somewhat unpredictable. Even your own idea of your 'nature' is not 100% manifest - it has a bias variable, among others. With all these variables in our world, in any situation, there is possibility to act differently, e.g. not in a way that would seem to be our 'nature'. Your history is the best indicator of who you are, because that is all you really have and know so far. Thus, what we really have is our history, not our nature.
I agree. To me this means "you are the sum of your actions". Our 'nature', while we believe we have a good idea of it, is still somewhat unpredictable. Even your own idea of your 'nature' is not 100% manifest - it has a bias variable, among others. With all these variables in our world, in any situation, there is possibility to act differently, e.g. not in a way that would seem to be our 'nature'. Your history is the best indicator of who you are, because that is all you really have and know so far. Thus, what we really have is our history, not our nature.
I interpret it is as we do not have nature, because we act more out of rational thought which is founded upon past experiences, creating models for understanding in your mind, rather than instinct. Being fully natured, to me, would be one who operates solely on instinct (animals). However, I do not agree with it, as I believe some level of instinctual behavior is elicited in everyday life. Therefore, we are a blend of natural instinctiveness and historical experiences to create the 'human experience'.
OK Senna, I'll take a swing at the philosophy pitch. I'm procrastinating on this work project charter... maybe I'll start after I finish this post.
I agree. To me this means "you are the sum of your actions". Our 'nature', while we believe we have a good idea of it, is still somewhat unpredictable. Even your own idea of your 'nature' is not 100% manifest - it has a bias variable, among others. With all these variables in our world, in any situation, there is possibility to act differently, e.g. not in a way that would seem to be our 'nature'. Your history is the best indicator of who you are, because that is all you really have and know so far. Thus, what we really have is our history, not our nature.
I agree. To me this means "you are the sum of your actions". Our 'nature', while we believe we have a good idea of it, is still somewhat unpredictable. Even your own idea of your 'nature' is not 100% manifest - it has a bias variable, among others. With all these variables in our world, in any situation, there is possibility to act differently, e.g. not in a way that would seem to be our 'nature'. Your history is the best indicator of who you are, because that is all you really have and know so far. Thus, what we really have is our history, not our nature.
I interpret it is as we do not have nature, because we act more out of rational thought which is founded upon past experiences, creating models for understanding in your mind, rather than instinct. Being fully natured, to me, would be one who operates solely on instinct (animals). However, I do not agree with it, as I believe some level of instinctual behavior is elicited in everyday life. Therefore, we are a blend of natural instinctiveness and historical experiences to create the 'human experience'.
good conversation guys.









