I agree with the previous post. I would say it has to do with sex. Each of us seems to only have half of a viable reproductive system. We can’t survive alone. We become social by Darwinism. It’s what works. Thank you
But I think there’s more to it, in a metaphysical sense: I take consciousness to be primary, in terms of metaphysical substance. And humans, having a relatively developed sense of self consciousness, recognize that on the deepest level we are literally all One.
I agree with the fellow above…I think socializing amongst humans is biological/psychological as well as a spiritual thing. By being around one another, it’s souls conversing, converging on a level that can’t be measured by finite resources.
I don’t think humans are social beings…
For cats it was said they’re antisocial but recent studies show they actually are very sociable (japan cat island).
I guess it depends on a person… Or how human someone is?
We need love from other sources, be it human beings or God.
It is our inner need to breathe. Without love, our soul will slowly die away.
Loving people let us feel love in tangible forms, like words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts of appreciation, etc. They can even give us a glimpse of Godly love.
“Social” in today’s world may be a bit iffy, depending on where one is located and who one are, there is some credibility about the term “animal”… 🙂 soooooooooo, let me count the ways; love, passion, curiosity, belief, feelings, etc, etc….. too many to count… 🙂 I am not a crowd follower here… 🙂
“The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no man has ever been before.” Francis Phillip Wernig
We are social because we had to. As these great people said before, it is linked in our DNA because it was the only way for us to survive since together we are stronger. However, this is not as necessary now as it was before.
It was a facet of evolution. It takes a village to raise a child. The more social we became, the better we were able to care for our young both physically (at first) and emotionally (as our social skills improved). Darwinism is often twisted. I believe that all Darwin said was that species that have the most children that live to the age of reproduction will be most likely to continue to thrive. Later scientists have added tremendously to this initial tenet. While social Darwinism concepts are certainly relevant to our growing social skills as time progressed, I think our initial socialization (the ability to communicate, divide labor, use tools, hunt and gather, etc.) were actually related to the initial Darwinian tenet.
I don’t think we would function without it. We need a partner to reproduce and then we need a partner and more to care for and raise those children. I also think we would go insane without it. Anyone who has spent a lot of time alone will know that you can end up in deep, dark, rabbit holes in your own brain and I think we need help sometimes to get out of these, or distraction not to get into them at all.
I would say because somewhere deep in our evolutionary history our individual chances of surviving and reproducing were increased by social behaviour.
I agree with the previous post. I would say it has to do with sex. Each of us seems to only have half of a viable reproductive system. We can’t survive alone. We become social by Darwinism. It’s what works. Thank you
The survivability factor, for sure.
But I think there’s more to it, in a metaphysical sense: I take consciousness to be primary, in terms of metaphysical substance. And humans, having a relatively developed sense of self consciousness, recognize that on the deepest level we are literally all One.
I agree with the fellow above…I think socializing amongst humans is biological/psychological as well as a spiritual thing. By being around one another, it’s souls conversing, converging on a level that can’t be measured by finite resources.
I don’t think humans are social beings…
For cats it was said they’re antisocial but recent studies show they actually are very sociable (japan cat island).
I guess it depends on a person… Or how human someone is?
For reproducing, I would say…
We need to be social to survive.
we are just built that way. It’s in our DNA.
survival – we should count on each other and be able to, but that isn’t always the case.
Survival and grouping into communities and tribes.
I can’t agree with the premise of your question. We are not animals.
What makes you think that?:)
We were created with the emotional DNA to procreate and not be alone
Survival
I think our social proclivities are instinctual and explained by evolution.
We need love from other sources, be it human beings or God.
It is our inner need to breathe. Without love, our soul will slowly die away.
Loving people let us feel love in tangible forms, like words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts of appreciation, etc. They can even give us a glimpse of Godly love.
“Social” in today’s world may be a bit iffy, depending on where one is located and who one are, there is some credibility about the term “animal”… 🙂 soooooooooo, let me count the ways; love, passion, curiosity, belief, feelings, etc, etc….. too many to count… 🙂 I am not a crowd follower here… 🙂
“The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no man has ever been before.” Francis Phillip Wernig
We are social because we had to. As these great people said before, it is linked in our DNA because it was the only way for us to survive since together we are stronger. However, this is not as necessary now as it was before.
It was a facet of evolution. It takes a village to raise a child. The more social we became, the better we were able to care for our young both physically (at first) and emotionally (as our social skills improved). Darwinism is often twisted. I believe that all Darwin said was that species that have the most children that live to the age of reproduction will be most likely to continue to thrive. Later scientists have added tremendously to this initial tenet. While social Darwinism concepts are certainly relevant to our growing social skills as time progressed, I think our initial socialization (the ability to communicate, divide labor, use tools, hunt and gather, etc.) were actually related to the initial Darwinian tenet.
I don’t think we would function without it. We need a partner to reproduce and then we need a partner and more to care for and raise those children. I also think we would go insane without it. Anyone who has spent a lot of time alone will know that you can end up in deep, dark, rabbit holes in your own brain and I think we need help sometimes to get out of these, or distraction not to get into them at all.
Great point and I absolute agree 🙂
Thanks for sharing!