Why are humans different from other animals?

Use tools

The cerebral cortex has a language center!

These are all fundamental!

--------------------------------------------------

The most fundamental difference between humans and animals is that humans have the ability to think independently and make judgments, whereas animals generally do not have either of these functions; although it has also been found in some experiments that some primates (e.g., apes, orangutans) have a sense of Although in some experiments it has been found that some primates (such as apes and orangutans) also have expressions of joy, forgiveness, concern and pleasure and some simple manifestations, they do not have the ability to think independently.

These questions are also of great interest to scientists. They are also working hard on this aspect of the subject.

--------------- Essay Part

The unity of man and animal is the basic attribute of man, and the opposition of man and animal is the special attribute of man. "Human nature" and "human essence" should be the unity of human basic attributes and human characteristics, human biological attributes and human non-biological attributes, and both of them are indispensable. Marx, on the other hand, used the concepts of "human nature" and "human essence" in the sense of human characteristics and non-animal attributes. For example, he said in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "The abolition of private ownership is the complete emancipation of all the senses and characteristics of man. But this emancipation is to be effected by the fact that these senses and characteristics have become human in both subject and object." He first cites the eye as an example of an object that must be humanized: "The eye has become humanized precisely because its object has become a socially human object, an object made by and for man." The ear is then given as an example of how it must be humanized: "Just as music alone awakens the musical senses in man, so the most beautiful music has no meaning for the ear that does not understand it, and is not its object." In his 1845 Syllabus on Feuerbach, Marx said, "The nature of man is in its reality the sum of all social relations." In Marx's view, "social relations" exist only in human beings; they do not exist in the animal kingdom. The same is true of Engels. In "Anti-Dühring" he says: "The fact that man comes from the animal kingdom already determines that he can never be completely free from bestiality, and therefore the question can only be whether he is free from it to a greater or lesser extent, and whether it is in the degree of bestiality or of human nature". And so on. As Mr. Zhu Guangqian pointed out in his analysis, "The so-called 'human nature',...... is also non-animal." (2) After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the theoretical circles, whether from the "social", or from the "consciousness", or from the "labor", "practice", explain the "social", or from the "consciousness", or from the "labor", "practice". After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the theoretical circles, no matter from "sociality", "consciousness", or "labor" and "practice" to explain "human nature" or "human essence", have all taken "human nature" and "human essence" as human characteristics and "human nature". Human nature" and "human essence" are treated as the characteristics of human beings and the fundamental attributes that distinguish human beings from animals. It should be said that this is a serious misunderstanding of "human nature" and "human essence". The serious consequence of this is that it has resulted in the brutal trampling of man's minimum desire for survival (i.e., biological desire) over the decades since the founding of the country (a high-sounding reason is that this desire is inhuman). By defining "human nature" with "human characteristics", "objectification of human nature" becomes "objectification of human characteristics".

So what is the "human identity" that Marx understood? Marx said that the characteristics of man is "conscious and free activity", "labor", "the sum of social relations", our theoretical circles also respectively from the "consciousness", "consciousness", "labor", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations", "social relations" and "social relations". China's theoretical circles also use the term "human nature" or "human essence" in terms of "consciousness", "labor practice" and "sociality". The term "human nature" or "human essence" is also used in three aspects, namely, "consciousness", "labor practice" and "social nature", but what is the relationship between these three? These questions need to be clarified.

Taking "consciousness" and "reason" as the fundamental difference between human beings and animals is a traditional concept in Western classical philosophy. Influenced by Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach and others, Marx also understood the characteristics of human beings as "reason" and "freedom" in his early days. (3) From about 1844 onwards, this idea of his gradually changed. The symbols of this transformation are the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (hereinafter referred to as the Manuscripts), the Syllabus on Feuerbach written in 1845, and The German Ideology, which he co-wrote with Engels in 1845-1846. During this period, Marx's materialist view of history began to take shape. When he looked at the characteristics of human beings from the materialist view of history, he realized that his original view was too superficial. From the point of view of the content and essence of "consciousness", "consciousness can only be conscious existence at any time, and people's existence is their actual living process". (4) In terms of the history of the emergence of consciousness, and indeed the history of human beings, "the first historical act by which human beings distinguish themselves from animals is not that they think, but that they begin to produce the means of their own subsistence." (5) It is clear that the "consciousness" of human beings is determined by their particular livelihood activity, "labor" or "practice". "Labor" or "practice" is a more fundamental distinction between human beings and animals than "consciousness". On this point, Marx and Engels have some other remarks to refer to. Marx said in the preface of Critique of Political Economy in 1859: "The mode of production of material life governs the whole process of social, political and spiritual life. It is not people's consciousness that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." (6) In his Syllabus on Feuerbach, Marx states, "Social life is essentially practical." In "The Role of Labor in the Transformation from Ape to Man," Engels states, "The characteristic ...... of human society that distinguishes it from the apes is labor." (7)

After taking "labor" as the fundamental difference between man and animals, is "consciousness" still the difference between man and animals? It still is, though not fundamentally. The Manuscripts state that "labor" is characterized by "consciousness": "The whole character of a species consists in the manner in which the species lives and moves, and the character of the species of man consists in the fact that his activity is free and conscious. " Engels also said in "The Discernment of Nature" that "History differs from natural history only in that the former is the process of development of a self-conscious organism." In "The Role of Labor in the Transformation from Ape to Man," he states that labor transforms the medulla oblongata of the ape into the medulla oblongata of man, producing the human brain with its conscious faculties. (8) It can be seen that, in the view of Ma and En, consciousness is another difference between man and animals derived from labor, but not a fundamental one. What about "sociality"? It is also another form of expression of the distinction between human beings and animals derived from labor. Marx pointed out that human labor is characterized by the fact that it must be carried out in certain group relations. This kind of group cooperative relationship of human beings is "social relationship", and human beings thus have "social nature" and become "social animals": "Human beings are the most Man is a social animal in the truest sense of the word, not only as an animal of community, but also as an animal that can be independent only in society. It is as rare for an isolated individual to produce outside of society, as it may be for a civilized man who has fallen into the wilderness by chance and has become inherently social, as it is inconceivable that many individuals should have developed a language without living together and talking to each other. is incredible." (9) "All production is the appropriation of nature by the individual in and through a certain form of society." (10) Since man must engage in labor and production in certain social relations, "the nature of man is not an abstraction inherent in a single man, but in its reality it is the sum of all social relations." (11) It can be seen that social relations are really labor relations, another distinction between man and animals determined by labor.

In summary, it is not difficult to see that, according to Marx's intention, although labor, consciousness, and social relations are the difference between human beings and animals, the relationship between the three is not antithetical; labor is the fundamental difference between human beings and animals, and consciousness and social relations are the branching differences arising from this fundamental difference. For a long time, our theoretical circles often use labor, consciousness, and social relations in a sense of juxtaposition to illustrate the characteristics of human beings, which is a misunderstanding of Marx's thought. Practical aesthetics understands human nature (i.e., human identity) as labor and practice, which is in line with Marx's original intention. However, practical aesthetics is faced with two fatal problems here, firstly, can the view of this human identity of Marx, which it espouses, be established? Is it correct? Secondly, is it consistent with Marx's intention to take labor and practice as the essence of beauty? Is it consistent with aesthetic practice?

On the first question, I think the answer is negative. What is "labor"? Marx defined it as a special way of earning a living, that is, a "conscious", "conscious and free" way of "living activity". At the same time, Marx says that "the first historical act by which men distinguished themselves from animals was not that they thought, but that they began to produce the necessary means of subsistence", that it was "labor" that separated man from the animal kingdom and created the "consciousness" of the human brain, that is, the "consciousness" of the human mind, that is, the "consciousness" of the human body. It is "labor" that separates man from the animal kingdom and creates the "conscious" function of the human brain (Engels), which gives rise to the form of "consciousness" that reflects the life of social labor. Thus, the logical contradiction of the consent cycle arises: on the one hand, it is said that "labor" determines and creates "consciousness", and on the other hand, it is said that "labor" is a "conscious" form of life. On the one hand, it is said that "labor" determines and creates "consciousness", and on the other hand, it is said that "labor" is a "conscious" activity of earning a living. -"Labor"? If the existing semantics of "labor" remains unchanged, then the correct logical inference should be that "consciousness" came before "conscious" material livelihood activity Labor"; it is not "labor" that created man, but the long-term unconscious material livelihood activities of hominids that produced the "human brain" with "conscious" functions. It is the long term unconscious material activity of apes that produced the "human brain" with "conscious" function, and then produced the "conscious" activity of human beings - "labor": Thus, "the first historical act by which men distinguished themselves from the animals" was precisely that "they thought", not that "they began to produce the means of subsistence necessary for themselves" - "labor"! --"labor." By taking "consciousness" as his starting point and going on to "labor", which determines "consciousness", Marx thought he had made a big step forward, not realizing that what he defined as "labor" was also defined in terms of "consciousness" and "labor". labor" is again premised on "consciousness" and determined by "consciousness", he is actually still at the same place. In other words, if we understand Marx's theory of human identity according to normal logic, the answer we get is still that "consciousness" is the fundamental difference between human beings and animals, and that "labor" is only a human-animal distinction determined by "consciousness". labor" is only another difference between man and animals determined by "consciousness". (12) The same loophole exists in Marx's term "social relations". People usually understand "social relations" as group cooperation, which is not what Marx meant. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that "social relations" exist only in relation to human beings, and that "the meaning of social relations refers to the cooperation of a large number of individuals", and that the group cooperation of animals is called "herd". The group cooperation of animals is called "herd" relationship, only the group cooperation of human beings is called "social relationship". On the one hand, it is said that "the nature of man" is "the sum of social relations", and on the other hand, it is said that "social relations" are "cooperative relations of man". On the one hand, it is said that "social relations" are "human cooperative relations", which is a tautology, and it is not clear what a human being is. As a matter of fact, Marx's "social relations" are, from another point of view, labor relations, that is, the cooperative relations between the subjects of "conscious" livelihood activities, and he still takes the question of whether or not the subject of the activity has "consciousness" as the basis for distinguishing human beings from other human beings. consciousness" as the fundamental attribute that distinguishes man from animals.

One of the reasons why Marx made such a logical mistake is that he confused "consciousness" as a function of the human brain with "consciousness" as an ideology. In fact, "consciousness" as an "ideology" must have a reflective content, and may be "at all times only conscious (social) existence" (which is not quite the case, for example. It may be "at all times only a conscious (social) being" (which is not quite true, for example, the reflection of consciousness on inner instinctive desires), and it is constituted and determined by the life of labor, whereas "consciousness" as a function of the human brain does not need to reflect content, but only refers to the physiological and psychological function of the human brain, which is in no way constituted by labor. Consciousness, which is the fundamental difference between human beings and animals, can only be a function of consciousness, not an ideology. When an infant is born, it does not have an ideology, but it does have a conscious function, and you cannot deny that it is a human being. To confuse ideology with conscious function, to conclude from the fact that ideology is constituted by labor as its essence and content, and to conclude that labor is a more fundamental and deeper distinction between human beings and animals than consciousness, is one of the ideological misunderstandings leading to the theory of the essence of labor - human beings.

On the second issue, some scholars have long pointed out that it is not in line with Marx's intention to take the "objectification" of labor and practice as the "essence of man" as the essence of beauty. For example, Huang Haicheng pointed out in his 1986 book Principles of Aesthetics in Systemic Cybernetics and Information Theory that "the objectification of the essence of man or of the essential power and similar expressions did appear in Marx's writings, but he did not use these languages in defining beauty. If we mechanically copy them over to define beauty, it will not be comprehensive or accurate enough, and it will seem as if we are honoring Marx while actually distorting him." (13) The main basis for the practice-based aesthetics called "Marxist aesthetics" is Marx's "Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844," and since the 1980s, this economic manuscript on alienated labor in capitalist society seems to have turned into an aesthetics manuscript, on which various schools of aestheticians have based themselves. Since the 1980s, this economic manuscript on alienated labor in capitalist society seems to have become a manuscript on aesthetics, on which various aestheticians have tried to restate the essence of beauty, either by revising their original views, as in the case of Zhu Guangqian and Jiang Kongyang (14), or by enriching the arguments of their own original views, as in the case of Cai Yi and Li Zehou. (15) It is against this background that the current aesthetic textbooks practicing the aesthetic view have been formed in succession. Although the explanations vary, their thinking is almost nothing more than the following: the Manuscripts said that "labor creates beauty," so the essence of beauty is labor; the Manuscripts pointed out that "labor" means "conscious life activity" - "conscious life activity" - "the essence of beauty is labor". The Manuscript states that "labor" is "conscious life activity" - "the objectification of human nature", so the essence of beauty is "the objectification of human nature". Obviously, here in pretend to be confused, it replaced the original proposition in the concept of "labor" and "beauty" of the two concepts of the concept of the circumference of the circumference of the concept of the original subject and the object of the word irreversible judgment into a reversible judgment. As if elevating Marx, in fact, distorting Marx; as if justified, in fact, strong words. As we all know, the Manuscripts discuss "labor creates beauty" in exposing the inequality caused by "alienated labor" in capitalist society, which is seriously out of touch with the products of labor. Marx pointed out: "Labor produces marvelous works for the rich, but it produces poverty for the laborer. Labor produces palaces for the rich, but poverty for the laborers. Labor produces (Liu Pikun translation as "created") beauty, but produces ugliness for the laborer. Labor produces beauty, but produces ugliness for the laborer. Labor replaces labor with machines, but throws some of the laborers back to the barbaric way of labor, and turns the rest of the laborers into machines. Labor produces intelligence, but the substitute laborer produces stupidity and idiocy." (16) It is obvious that in the proposition that "labor creates beauty," the object "beauty" refers to the beauty of wealth produced for the rich, which is an ill-defined concept that does not mean that all the products of labor are beautiful, let alone all the beauty of the world. Similarly, the subject word "labor" refers only to some of the labor - "alienated labor" - and not to all of it: and, of the "alienated labor", only the labor produced for the rich is beautiful. only that part of "alienated labor" which produces "marvelous works" such as "palaces" for the "rich" creates "alienated labor". only that part of "alienated labor" which produces "marvelous works" such as "palaces" for the "rich" creates "beauty", and that part of "alienated labor" which produces "hovels" for the "laborers" themselves can only produce "use-value" which is a shelter from the wind and the rain, and which is a means of livelihood. use-value. In other words, "labor" is also an ill-defined concept. Therefore, the inference that "the essence of beauty" is "labor," "practice," and "the objectification of the essence of man" is inconsistent with Marx's theory that "the essence of beauty" is "labor," "practice," and "the objectification of the essence of man. The inference from this is far from Marx's original intention.

The flaws of the idea that the "essence of beauty" is "the objectification of human nature" and "labor practice" are even more obvious when measured against aesthetic practice. As mentioned above, Marx believed that "the essence of man" is "labor", so "the objectification of man's essence" is "the objectification of labor. ". Leaving aside the fact that "labor" as a subjective to the objective material activities, itself has been included in the meaning of objectification, objectification, said "objectification of labor" is the same as "objectification" of the "objectification". "objectification", the logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Even if we assume that this proposition is logically correct, then "objectification of labor" means the materialization and productization of labor, can we say that all labor products are beautiful? Of course not. As a product of labor, it must have the essence, characteristics and mission is utility (or use value) rather than beauty, labor can be created in the creation of utility at the same time to create beauty, but the beauty of labor does not constitute the mission that must be undertaken and must have the characteristics. This is common sense. If the "essence of man" is understood as "consciousness" and "social relations", and if this "objectification" of the "essence of man" is taken as the "objectification" of the "essence of man", then the "objectification" of the "essence of man" is not the same as the "objectification" of the "essence of man". To define beauty by this "objectification" of "human essence" is even more of a generalization. As we all know, not only the "objectification" of "consciousness" and "social relations" may be beautiful, but also the objectification of instincts, emotions, and the relationship between human beings and nature: at the same time, not all "consciousness" is beautiful. At the same time, not all "consciousness", "social relations" "objectification" are beautiful, only the good moral consciousness, good social relations of the objectification is beautiful, just as "Beauty is the objectification of human nature" leaves open the question of what kind of "human nature" is beautiful. In this regard, some scholars have pointed out that "the expression 'objectification' does not stipulate what kind of human essence or essential force is beautiful when it is objectified. In fact, not all human, not all human essence or essence of the power of objectification are beautiful, because the essence of man is ...... the sum of all social relations. Social relations are complex and diverse, and the essence of man cannot be uniform. Yue Fei and Qin Hui ...... stream in essence how can be compared?" (17) Precisely because they cannot be compared, this very far-fetched explanation emerges: "The essential force of man ...... is the positive force of truth-seeking and goodness that promotes the progress of mankind and pushes history forward. ...... All the Reactionary elements of the corrupt and decadent behavior, are contrary to the trend of historical development, can not be considered the essential power of man, but the essential power of man's reaction." (18) Therefore, Yue Fei and other morally good people are with the "essential power of man"; Qin Hui and other morally bad people do not have the "essential power of man", so the reality has become the slave girl of the theory, in order to make the theory can be self-justified, people have become the Non-human. This is really unconvincing self-talk.

Perhaps the theorists of practical aesthetics realized that there was an obvious generalization in saying that beauty is "the objectification of human nature", so they picked out the phrase "the essential power of man" from Marx's Manuscripts, which covers So they picked out the phrase "the essential power of man" from Marx's "Manuscripts" to cover "all the essential power and function of man's spiritual and physical aspects" (19), and then explained all the aesthetic phenomena with "the objectification of man's essential power". This approach is well-intentioned, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. First of all, there is no doubt that the meaning of "the essential power of man" should be a logical extension of the connotation of "human nature", the two may have different extensions, but the main meaning of the unity, it is impossible to "the essence of man" means "labor". It is not possible that "human essence" refers to the non-biological attributes of human beings such as "labor", "consciousness", "social relations", etc., whereas "human essential power" refers to "the power of human essence". The term "man's essential power" refers to "all the essential powers and functions of man, both physical and spiritual", i.e., the sum total of man's biological and non-biological attributes. Secondly, the Manuscripts are the product of Marx's materialist conception of history, which is just beginning to take shape, and the materialist conception of history is dominant, but there is still a remnant of Feuerbach's abstract theory of human nature, as evidenced by the phrase "the essential powers of man". In the Manuscripts, the meaning of the term "the essential forces of man" is ambiguous, and sometimes it does refer to both the "physical and spiritual" aspects of man's power, but this is precisely the idea that Marx later abandoned, and does not represent the views of Marx after maturity. Moreover, as mentioned above, not all "objectifications" of "human physical and spiritual forces" are beautiful.

The concept of "objectification" is also problematic in the definition of the nature of beauty in practical aesthetics. Marx's use of the term "objectification" originally came from Hegel, and refers mainly to the materialization of spirit into matter. Hegel examined the form of the Idea in the context of the movement of "alienation" of the Idea. According to Hegel, the Idea existed before the creation of nature. At that time, the "idea" was still in the stage of pure abstraction, which was one-sided and unreal. Due to the inherent contradictory role of the "idea", the abstract "idea" is "alienated" into "nature" through self-negation. "Nature is the purely material stage of the development of the Idea, which is also one-sided and unreal. Then, through internal contradiction, "nature" is "alienated" into "absolute idea". At this stage, spirit and matter, subjectivity and objectivity reach a dialectical unity, and the "idea" is no longer developed. Abstract ideas alienated into nature, that is, the process of spirit into matter, Hegel sometimes called "externalization", "objectification". It can be seen that "objectification" is a special form of the movement of "alienation" of ideas. In the Manuscripts, when Marx talks about "objectification", he mainly refers to this meaning. On the surface, Marx thinks that "the objectification of human nature" is "the objectification of the life of the human species (i.e., conscious life activities, labor)", but in fact, because "the life of the human species" is based on "the life of the human species" with "conscious life activities, labor", it is a special form of "alienation" of ideas. In fact, since "the life of the human species" is premised on the existence of the brain, which has the function of "consciousness", what Marx meant by "the objectification of human nature" is "the objectification of human consciousness". Therefore, when Marx said "the objectification of man's essence", he meant "the objectification of man's consciousness". There is no doubt that material activity is an essential feature of objectifying activity. Even in its literal sense, "objectification" means "materialization". If this meaning remains unchanged, then the beauty that conforms to the "objectification of human nature" can only be a part of the products of labor with aesthetic value: if we want to use the "objectification of human nature" to explain all the beauty, including the beauty of empathy, intuitive projection, and symbols of personality (mainly referring to natural beauty), then we should use "objectification of human nature" to explain all the beauty, including the beauty of empathy, intuition, and symbols of personality. (mainly refers to natural beauty), it must be made clear that this "objectification" which can be confined to the subject's intuition, emotion and imagination is not what Marx called "objectification", but his own reappropriation of the word.

To sum up, Marx's "objectification of the nature of man" refers to the "objectification of labor" as far as its conscious side is concerned, and to "the objectification of conscious activity" as far as its unconscious side is concerned. Objectification - "labor": it reveals the essence of the special human livelihood - economic activity - labor, not the essence of beauty. and not the essence of beauty. "It is impossible to define beauty as an objectification of the essence or essential power of man without being full of holes." (20)

The holes in practical aesthetics and its theoretical core are practically instantaneous, yet as the reader can see, this paper is quite heavy and strenuous in discussing these quoted holes. The reason for this is no other than the fact that a fallacy (allow me to use that word) repeated a thousand times can easily be taken for the truth. If this kind of doctrine appeared a few years ago, when everything was said to be Marx, it is still excusable, but nowadays, when academic issues can be discussed freely and realistically, and at the turn of the century, when this century is about to pass and the new century is about to come, it would be silly and ridiculous to repeat this kind of doctrine again. Completely remove this specious doctrine, our aesthetics workers there is no way back, there is no over and over, can be relied on, this is for us to explore the new definition of the essence of beauty, the construction of a new system of aesthetics is extremely useful to promote the role of. Explore the new definition of the essence of beauty, construct a new aesthetic system, as long as adhere to the pragmatic, all from the aesthetic practice of Marxism living soul, even if you can not find a ready basis from the writings of Marx, but also Marxist aesthetics, and is a true Marxist aesthetics. On the contrary, a doctrine that starts not from aesthetic practice but from the words of Marx and others about beauty, and that mutilates the aesthetic reality in a way that cuts the feet to fit the shoes, is not only non-Marxist, but also fundamentally contrary to Marxism. A new exploration of the nature of beauty and a new construction of the aesthetic system should follow the methodology of seeking truth from facts. We believe that the results of the resulting thinking must be refreshing

Romance

The most fundamental difference between human beings and animals is that they have feelings.

Human beings have different feelings. My happiness is to be with you.

Perhaps sometimes I will be happy, perhaps sometimes I will be sad, sometimes painful, sometimes frustrated, there is joy, there is ecstasy

All sorts of feelings ---- through the sharpening of time, precipitated into happiness.

My love, too, there will certainly be a climax, there is a trough, there is passion, there is dark, so the love is true love.

Thought is the soul of man, is the fundamental difference between man and animals. What makes a man a man is that he has a mind, while an animal does not. The reason why people have thoughts, is that people have transcendence, human life is beyond the reality of the ideal life, the pursuit of ideals, the process towards the ideal will make people become the real meaning of the human process. People without thought are not people in the full sense of the word, they are crippled people.

Thought

Thought makes a man elegant, makes a man sublime. Mediocre people only know the pursuit of material prosperity, do not know the pursuit of spiritual life noble and elegant, living in material desires, do not know the meaning and value of life. The true meaning of the people, not only know the material life of affluence, but also know the spiritual life of noble.

-------------------------------------