Which do you,as philosopher, tend to emphasize: the animalistic side of human nature or the intellectual side?

Question

This is Q# 998, 2 to go to #1000

Y and G, do you see why I must move on?

an·i·mal·ism (n-m-lzm) KEY

NOUN:

Enjoyment of vigorous health and physical drives.
Indifference to all but the physical appetites.
The doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature.


OTHER FORMS:
ani·mal·ist (Noun), ani·mal·istic (-lstk) KEY (Adjective)

in·tel·lec·tu·al (ntl-kch-l) KEY

ADJECTIVE:


Of or relating to the intellect.
Rational rather than emotional.
Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.

Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
NOUN:

An intellectual person.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French intellectuel, from Late Latin intellctulis, from Latin intellctus, intellect ; see intellect"

People don't even bother to look up the significant terms in a dictionary b4 they answer! It's disheartening!!

Answer 1

An answer to this question is dependent upon what you mean by 'emphasize'. The animalistic component of humanity is present in most aspects of our lives, and any philosopher worth his salt would have to recognize that aspect of the human mind in order to fully address the nature of man. I don't see how one could be a philosophical student and base their study upon animalism. That would seem to be counter-philosophy.

Answer 2

Animalistic is quite different from intellectual. Probably the best comparison to intellectual is intuition. However, when it comes to philosophy, truth is above all sides of humanity, whether that be intellectual, inituitive, or animalistic if you prefer. There need not be emphasis to any side.

Answer 3

I try and appeal to the intellectual side, based on the assumption that my audience has intelligence. Intelligence is an innate characteristic and I hope that everyone takes advantage of expanding their intellect to the maximum, and thereby avoiding ignorance.

Answer 4

I like to be animally intellectual and do it like a bunny rabbit with a pair of glasses and a Harry Potter book.

Answer 5

"The tragedy [in the meaning of that question, says the Syntopicon,] is that we are forced to choose." Without animal nature, there is no intellect that exists. They are as one.
Kant decried his animalistic nature--his famous words on that subject are on his gravestone, a whole paragraph.
Thomas Aquinas taught us to enbrace our animal nature. Within TWO YEARS of Aquinas teaching us that, the first man in recorded history climbed a mountain just because it was there, and because he could. Now we have "extreme sports," thanks in great part to MTV!
I revel in being Homo sapient sapient. Know what that means? The animal species of Homo, a branch called "sapient," and a second branch (us) called "sapient sapient," meaning conscious of being conscious.
We are self-conscious animals. It requires a flesh form for a flesh based intelligence.

Answer 6

i like both of them for different reasons.

i like the animal istic side to show how we are still linked to our past. especially when i am talking to religious people b/c alot of them don't beleive in that side. i like to put forth the animalistic idea b/c i accept evolution and understand that we have animalistic characteristics.

i like the intellectual side b/c i understand how it seperates us from our ancestors. it is fun to be different and we are special. so i like to embrace the intellectual side b/c it does show how we are different.

Answer 7

i dont think i actually consider myself as a philosopher only a curious human being; thats all. in terms of enphasizing either my animal side or intellectual sde; i try to do both..to have a balance i think; to be sane. because if i enphasize to much of one i'll become insane.