some thoughts from The Bonobo and the Atheist, by Frans De Waal
I was laughing at myself and my continually reverting to the desire to ask: so, why are we like this? Whatever behavior I'm currently reading about substitute for the this: why are we religious? Why are we empathetic or war mongering or kind of compassionate, etc. Even though I know there is no answer to this question and that the question itself is not particularly useful to ask. There is no "we" first of all for which any behavior could have one general explanation, not to mention that human complexity is such that no behavior exists in a vacuum and understanding would require such a large systematic comprehension that I'm convinced, at this point, it is impossible. And finally, human behavior and motivation and emotion is not stagnant so any partial explanation would only be good at one given moment.
And, yet I still find myself reverting back to that query. Why? First, I suppose is a desire to understand because through understanding the behavior becomes "known" and then maybe it could be molded? Changed? bred in or out as the case may be? Second, so the world wouldn't seem such an incomprehensible place but just one that we don't understand yet? Because humans seek explanations? It's in our nature? (I realize the self-contradiction in that statement and the previous paragraph. . . )
What would be a "better" or more "productive" approach to what I'm reading? How do we read? Why do we read?
To develop compassion and tolerance seems to be a big one. The more we understand the complexity of being, the more we understand that many forces are working simultaneously shaping and honing our behaviors the harder it is to judge, dismiss or dehumanize.
In the city, yesterday we passed a homeless man on the street. He was young and carrying a pillow. He said, quietly, "excuse me", as we passed, adding "I'm not asking for money". He was also clearly flying high on something. We stopped and turned to him. He looked shocked and paused a moment before saying "I didn't think you were going to acknowledge me". So many thoughts went through my mind: how does it feel to be this man having to beg strangers to acknowledge his existence? How does he feel about who he is? What do his parents or friends think that this is how he lives? How did he get here? What can be done in response to this man? How can we help? And this last is always so complicated--what would help be? According to whom? To what end? Is it even possible to help or should we aim for something different. How do we acknowledge his humanity? Our own? It turned out that he wanted us to buy him some lunch from a grocery store. But we were in a hurry and gave him money instead.I thought as we walked off, we are all only humans. But I kept thinking about the man throughout the rest of our day. Was it right to give him money? Did he want food because he knew that he wouldn't buy food with the money? Should I treat him as a responsible adult who gets to make his own choices or do I take that freedom from him because he is using drugs? How does one make these decisions? These are obviously not new questions but continually remind how for me the reading life is also the lived life.
All of this leads me back to the question of, how do I read? how should I read? How do I alter my perspective from trying to find out why to trying to find out how? How do you "be" in this world that we live in? And how does reading help you "be"?
Reading De Waal: De Waal shows how our evolutionary ancestors lead complex and varied lives and that attempting to draw lines from our own behavior to causes in our ancestors is no simple thing. We are both violent (Chimps) and compassionate (Bonobos), and both at the same time. This later is crucial--just like humans, apes are kind and deadly.
Interestingly, after all this talk about helping/not helping the homeless man (and how reading can help us to resolve this dilemma) I got to the part of DeWaal's book where he states that altruism comes from within and is not guided towards some genetic goal. How would it help my genes to feed a homeless person? And yet, i still do it, De Waal's theory would go. But, is feeding the homeless person "altruistic"? How much "altruism" comes from our own desire to alleviate some feelings we are having? Is this still altruism?
De Waal makes some very thought provoking points about sex and the development of taboos in humans. Bonobo's, very close relatives to humans (some debate about whether chimps or Bonobos are closer) are very peaceful (compared to chimps) but very sexual. They have sex all the time with everyone (except sex that would be incestuous). It's like sneezing or eating and doesn't have any particular meaning. The question arises, how did humans develop the notion of fidelity? Where does that fit? And what useful and not useful social functions does the notion provide (can't help but think of The Good Soldier here and all the problems that arise around what sex means to people and its association with love . . . where did all that baggage come from?).
And, yet I still find myself reverting back to that query. Why? First, I suppose is a desire to understand because through understanding the behavior becomes "known" and then maybe it could be molded? Changed? bred in or out as the case may be? Second, so the world wouldn't seem such an incomprehensible place but just one that we don't understand yet? Because humans seek explanations? It's in our nature? (I realize the self-contradiction in that statement and the previous paragraph. . . )
What would be a "better" or more "productive" approach to what I'm reading? How do we read? Why do we read?
To develop compassion and tolerance seems to be a big one. The more we understand the complexity of being, the more we understand that many forces are working simultaneously shaping and honing our behaviors the harder it is to judge, dismiss or dehumanize.
In the city, yesterday we passed a homeless man on the street. He was young and carrying a pillow. He said, quietly, "excuse me", as we passed, adding "I'm not asking for money". He was also clearly flying high on something. We stopped and turned to him. He looked shocked and paused a moment before saying "I didn't think you were going to acknowledge me". So many thoughts went through my mind: how does it feel to be this man having to beg strangers to acknowledge his existence? How does he feel about who he is? What do his parents or friends think that this is how he lives? How did he get here? What can be done in response to this man? How can we help? And this last is always so complicated--what would help be? According to whom? To what end? Is it even possible to help or should we aim for something different. How do we acknowledge his humanity? Our own? It turned out that he wanted us to buy him some lunch from a grocery store. But we were in a hurry and gave him money instead.I thought as we walked off, we are all only humans. But I kept thinking about the man throughout the rest of our day. Was it right to give him money? Did he want food because he knew that he wouldn't buy food with the money? Should I treat him as a responsible adult who gets to make his own choices or do I take that freedom from him because he is using drugs? How does one make these decisions? These are obviously not new questions but continually remind how for me the reading life is also the lived life.
All of this leads me back to the question of, how do I read? how should I read? How do I alter my perspective from trying to find out why to trying to find out how? How do you "be" in this world that we live in? And how does reading help you "be"?
Reading De Waal: De Waal shows how our evolutionary ancestors lead complex and varied lives and that attempting to draw lines from our own behavior to causes in our ancestors is no simple thing. We are both violent (Chimps) and compassionate (Bonobos), and both at the same time. This later is crucial--just like humans, apes are kind and deadly.
Interestingly, after all this talk about helping/not helping the homeless man (and how reading can help us to resolve this dilemma) I got to the part of DeWaal's book where he states that altruism comes from within and is not guided towards some genetic goal. How would it help my genes to feed a homeless person? And yet, i still do it, De Waal's theory would go. But, is feeding the homeless person "altruistic"? How much "altruism" comes from our own desire to alleviate some feelings we are having? Is this still altruism?
De Waal makes some very thought provoking points about sex and the development of taboos in humans. Bonobo's, very close relatives to humans (some debate about whether chimps or Bonobos are closer) are very peaceful (compared to chimps) but very sexual. They have sex all the time with everyone (except sex that would be incestuous). It's like sneezing or eating and doesn't have any particular meaning. The question arises, how did humans develop the notion of fidelity? Where does that fit? And what useful and not useful social functions does the notion provide (can't help but think of The Good Soldier here and all the problems that arise around what sex means to people and its association with love . . . where did all that baggage come from?).
Comments
Post a Comment