Man, as far as I can tell, will always be limited by its being an animal. In a biological sense, man truly is, given its anatomy and physiology, and what it needs in order to grow and survive. What is also clear is how man is differentiated from other members of the animal kingdom. And it all, of course, has to do with the mind. This is the mind that leads to man taking charge of his environment, subduing it, with the intent to. Other species are stuck in the process of only being able to adapt to the surroundings, and man has become large enough to take an active part in this. I end here, this is all known.
I’ll take it a notch further, by saying that the mind (partly) exists on a realm of its own. This is a world of assumptions, of prejudice, of the abstract ways in which elements come together aesthetically, which are all man-made constructs. Take man away, and, all things constant, these cease to exist. That, too, is not projected to change anytime soon. As such, I believe that as the realm of the mind expands, it begins to mess with reality, hence influencing our actions. We can find evidence in a lot of instances, as in the aforementioned prejudice. But now, I stated partly, as I’d say that majority of the mind’s function still lies on a need-based system: responding to what the animal wants, and, unlike others, finding innovative solutions to delivering said wants. Despite my tone, I do not doubt any one bit the goodness that has come out of our responses to wants and needs.
But then, the limit, as I said, is in man’s not being exempt from things subjected to other animals. You take the mind away, or, more realistically, give it reason to throw rationality out the window, and you are an animal. Further responses may lack a humanistic “why?” and may be replaced with one truly primal characteristic: instinct. Evolution has not erased traces of it; we are thus not fully safe from making dangerous choices. I thus jump to my own experience:
Sometimes, I just snap. Post-evaluation has led to me believe that I see, in these instances, the border between the thinker and the beast. Emotion takes the driver’s seat: while it is still human, it is less so, in the rational sense of the word.
Here, I would’ve then equated unfiltered rage to being “animalistic”, but I am not so sure. Cheers.