- 最后登录
- 2012-10-12
- 在线时间
- 17 小时
- 寄托币
- 106
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2007-10-27
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 4
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 33
- UID
- 2418838
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 106
- 注册时间
- 2007-10-27
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 4
|
本帖最后由 nevergohome 于 2009-8-14 13:06 编辑
求拍,多谢lz了。。
Do you agree or not that observing and studying animal's behaviors is useful to know human nature?
With the publication of Darwin’s masterpiece “Origin of Species”, the very book that paved the road for modern evolutionary biology, human started to view their nature in a revolutionary way. Human nature, claimed by people of the time, is no longer an embodiment of deity or mundane moral but a refinement of animal natures, and thereby, can be understood through systematic observation of animal’s behaviors. This statement, however sound in its feasibility and usefulness, is not entirely correct--- we might find part of the truth of our natures through such method, but not all of it.
No one can deny the fact that by studying animals’ behaviors we have learned and will continue to learn much about our natures, but only those concerning our basic needs are reliable enough. Through a broad observation of animal’s behaviors did human generalize the instincts that play elementary roles in animal’s natures (including human’s): physiological need—food, water, sex, shelter, breeding and basic social need—love, safety, and socialization. A study by Psychologist Harry Harlow showed a lack of socialization may cause irreparable psychological and mental damage: raised in bare wire cage and deprived any physical contact with their companions for several months, baby monkeys were observed to have various abnormalities such as blank staring and self-mutilation after released; and when they were reintegrated with normal monkeys, Harlow found little rehabilitation in the testees. This experiment thus demonstrates an indispensable social need for cognitive development in human natures, which is later proved by the revelation of the function of cross section in human Thalamus.
However, rarely can we fruit anything by merely studying animals when we attempt to learn those natures intertwined in the net of our culture. Humans are so unique among other animals for their endowment of creating culture on the texture of daily life, in which arts stand out as sublime creation that can only be understood in the light of human aesthetic nature. Beethoven’s Sonata, Yeats’ lyric, Constable’s landscape and Bernini’s statuary, such arts make us stop, linger, intoxicated and even astounded by their ravishing beauty, while are generally indifferent to other creatures. It is culture that nurtures our art appreciation, the most sophisticated and abstract form of human nature, which can only be dimly understood by studying animal’s aesthetic faculties.
Even more dangerous is the intentional analogy between animal behaviors and human natures. Such is often the case when observers study their subjects incomprehensively or when interpreters attribute specious human natures to animal behaviors. Consider, in history, there are numerous occasions we may recall: when Spencer’s theory prevailed in both side of Atlantic, when Raymond Dart’s defining human as the killer ape, and when the massacre began in the war-stricken Europe, no one would forget their claim “survival the fittest” and the overwhelming proof from animal’s behaviors. In these cases, learning human natures through analogical animal observation is not only distorting but even disastrous.
In general, the word “useful” is rather a tricky one for it cannot be understood literally. In order to achieve usefulness through animal study, we must take every dimension into account: the level of nature we study, the culture background the nature concerns, the accuracy of our observation, the feasibility of the analogy and the ethical problem it may bring. After all, we won’t expect a misleading study to debauch human natures, although they are not as perfect as we think. |
|