>>4087863on the retard, think this:
A requires B to do X. B requires Y to do X.
Therefore, A requires Y.
><We need trees to do photosynthesis in order to liveThis is a red herring, you need food to supply yourself with energy, but it doesn't matter where it comes from. food is food. similarly, rationality is raionality.
For a human to live (never mind flourish) he needs rationality. and:
>however we do not do photosynthesis ourselves.correct, but it doesn't mean that we aren't self directed animate matter ourselves. We are life, and life requires things to live. This goes for all life.
Plants need water and sun and the ability to get it (location), Mushrooms need dead things and water and the ability to get it (location), Animals need food and water an the ability to get it (instinct), Humans need food and water and the ability to get it (rationality)
O the point of hormones, it is irrelevant. Whether the mother deduces- that since she wants to feed her child, that'd take more energy, so she would need more food- is irrelevant, since it would be a fact that if you produce milk, it would require energy/ resources/ food, which would mean that the mother is drained of energy, resources, food and therefore would be hungry (needing sustenance) that is an observable fact of reality that to make x you need y
Where it is important is the choice. Without the choice of the mother to feed the child, then the child would die, and that would be the end of it.
And on the hunger; this is a point to make. the fact that a mother is hungry after birth does not pre-determine the choice to feed the child. While she could choose to or not to- wither would be a choice, which would require some thinking, rationality, concepts.
>yes, many other social species are the sameThis does not remove the point I am making.
Humans are rational animals (when adults, obviously)
but their children are not. This must mean that they gain rationality. This is a simple deduction.
Mere animals are mere animals, however. They aren't rational as children and never will be. While they rely on their mothers or their pack, the meaning is different. They do not have the element of choice. They cannot think about things. They do not have concepts, no ideas- no rationality.
>No. You feel anger when in pain because your brain has evolved to feel as suchis that true? Do you feel angry at every moment of pain? I don't. Clearly we have different emotional responses, and when you ask or perform experiments on others, you'd see differing results. Why is that? because that isn't what a human is.
"A human is something that does things to live and reacts to things in this way when hurt"
No. This point is beaten by observation.
>by not following itWoah I never injected that, nor implied. If I pricked my hand on a fence and got angry and kicked a wall because of it, it wouldn't mean I couldn't "introspect" into why I felt that way when I cut my hand. You are still proposing a false dichotomy.
>your emotion might tell you to swear after hitting your footDo you have a little wasp called emotion speaking in your ear telling you what to say and do? No. It is (you) choosing whether or not to swear.
>Look at how smug I am mumma!>giga.png
>Are babies not human because they start off irrationalNo, they are humans. but when defining a cat you don't start with "pink, barely fuzzy, moist thing that can make noises occasionally then after that it gets fluffy and meows n shiz"
No, you look at a cat, look at their similarities and differentiate it from other things, such as a table being a thing meant to support smaller things (imprecise definition, but its for analogy) as opposed (different from) being a chair which is a thing meant to support people.
The way a human is defined is essentially through this.
You look at a human, you look at other humans and you say this is what's similar between humans, the you look to other things and say what's different. Boiled down, genus and differentia: Humans are rational animals..
If we see this thing come out of a human called a baby and it turns into what we have previously seen to be a human, then it is a human. But more specifically, if we wanted to be precise: it is a "baby" human. if x approaches and turns into Y, then X is only one state of Y. As much as you may hate it, math is the language of the world.
>es, dying is good under context, go look up Apoptosis you retarded niggerYou've already ceded it. You can't go back and say "now death is good" because you'd be contradicting yourself. Also you've just ceded again.
>Apoptosis is good because it keeps away cancer.IE, it means that an organism clipping its own illnesses can make it live, which is still giving you "life is good", which is a cede.
