During class I was interested in something Elias said—he said groups were a necessary thing for people, that we, in a sense, need them to function as people. I sort of did some philosophical research online, and I came up with an interesting question that philosophers like Spinoza considered. The question is: If two people, who had never seen a person before, suddenly met in the wilderness what would happen? Some people say that they would fight and try to kill one another in order to take each other's food, tools, whatever. Some people say they would sit down together and become good friends. And theres my favorite; some people say they would walk right past each other without even attempting to notice one another.
What do you think they'd do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i guess it depends on if they looked alike. despite what we want to think, we rely heavily on first impressions and we DO judge books by their covers (to use a cliche). i mean... if we didn't, why would we have eyes and a whole section of the brain dedicated to vision?
if they looked alike (like... both had dark/light hair, dark/light eyes, etc) then there would be a greater chance of them getting along. i'm not saying that they wouldn't get along if they didn't look alike, i'm just saying that there's a greater chance.
this connects to my volunteer work at the house rabbit society... when prospective adopters come in to try and find their rabbit a companion, we generally try introducing them to a rabbit that is the same color/type. (ie... if it's a lop, we introduce it to other lops) this way, it's a little easier because the new rabbit isn't a total stranger.
anyway, back to the original point... as for ignoring each other... i think that, if a person has never seen another person before, it would be "natural" for them to investigate this new being. i think it unlikely that they would walk past each other (that is, if they noticed each other.)
i think that, for the most part, groups are "natural." it's nearly impossible for someone to be friends with everyone (ie... in everyone's group) OR for someone to be part of no group at all.
-coe
I think it really depends on the situation a person is in. If someone is struggling to survive they might be more likely to harm the other person out of desperation. If both people had no immediate needs and were strolling through the wilderness, they would be more likely to become friends or ignore each other.
I agree with Coe's assessment of the importance of first appearances. I remember when we first looked at the "Street Calculus" cartoon in class when we were discussing identity. A lot of how people react depends on their first impressions and learned instincts. One's instincts and trained reaction to certain situations would have the most impact on the outcome of this scenario.
I think they would get along. After always thinning that they were alone in the world, finally finding another person like them could give them hope. So much of humans is based on the emotions we feel with one another that finally being able to experience this would be a good experience for both.
I agree with Leo. Being in a group would boost their moral and also increase their chance of survival. Groups have been part of our world since life began. While killing the stranger in the woods may provide one man a limited amount of food or some sort of tool, being in a group allows members to increase their chance of survival by doubling their strength and intellect. Natural groups can be seen in all different species of animals, particularly those that hunt in groups, such as wolves. Animals that hunt in groups have a large advantage over solitary animals in the wilderness.
Post a Comment