If you hit a dog with a stick, you would hear a painful scream and probably tears in his eyes. Whenever someone (who at least his mind works correctly) sees this terrible action, — javi2541997
In any event, if this is the path you wish to take, provide me the name of any of your heroes who lived 200 or more years ago, and I'll do the research to show you why you need to despise him. — Hanover
... ... animals... possess life, which is said to be "nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being". Descartes responds by simply denying the notion that "life" is nobler than inanimate being. In accordance with his mechanistic philosophy, he holds the body to be "nothing but a statue or machine made of earth," and apparently thinks this conclusion sufficiently well established that he need not defend it at length...
...Descartes expands this claim by asserting that "it is certain that [animals] have no perfection which is not also present in inanimate bodies". It follows, therefore, that any argument, derived from the observation of nature, which purported to prove that dogs or apes have reason would apply with the same force, not only to sponges, but even to rocks....
If we're looking at intent, then we have to try to figure out what they really thought, and unless you can show Descartes knew the dogs felt pain, you can't condemn him for that harm in the same way as someone who didn't know. — Hanover
That was integral to his philosophy and he could not depart into a theory that offered immortal souls to animals, as that would be contrary to Christian teachings. — Hanover
I note the evolving moral sensibilities that have occurred in my lifetime and I extrapolate backwards to draw the conclusion that today's ethical adherence is higher than yesterday's. Is that controversial? — Hanover
Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett take the next step of saying it's something that doesn't exist at all. — Wayfarer
Descartes had good reasons to posit res cogitans, — Manuel
You mean to say Descartes' conception of body. — Manuel
Dennett, as I read him, does not deny the existence of mind — Janus
We've been through that umpteen times. He does not deny it straight up, he says something like 'of course, I don't deny the existence of mind, but.....' - and then what comes after the 'but' amounts to denying the existence of mind. — Wayfarer
But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason. — Wayfarer
It's all ad hom. — Hanover
But they're defined in opposition to each other. Body is only extension with no thought, mind is only though with no extension. Even the human body is conceived of being like clay or earth, nothing alive about it, and the bodies of animals collections of mechanical parts. Man is different solely because of the divine gift of reason. — Wayfarer
, it's just wrong. There is no straight line from here back through European post-colonial, pre-colonial, christian, and pre-christian history, including other continents and cultures, through tribal social organizations of the Americas, Oceania, and Asian steppes. There have been many and various belief systems, moral and legal codes, religions, attitudes and practices. The time-line is by no means from the abyss to the pinnacle of human sensibility. — Vera Mont
BTW, I skimmed 'The Consciousness Deniers' and I could find no quotes from "the deniers" themselves which show that they actually are denying the existence of any kind of consciousness, which is telling. I'm no fan of Galen Strawson; I think his father was a much better philosopher. — Janus
Let's explore this then. Was Descartes a product of his time or was he fucked up even for someone living in the 17th century? — Hanover
The article links the lack of concern for animals on the same thing Descartes did: that animals lacked souls. — Hanover
That's a downgrade from Descartes, because Descartes was not crazy enough to think we doubted consciousness - while Dennett does. — Manuel
There's scientific evidence that we are natural born dualists, very interesting literature with experiments done by Iris Berent in The Blind Storyteller, that seem to give good evidence to this view. — Manuel
“The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion."
Ok, he doesn't mean that, he means that consciousness is not what we take it to be. Then he is using the word unlike most people - including scientists - use it, so the onus is one him to give a clear definition of what he's talking about. — Manuel
Oh, and I agree with you about Janus' 'straw Dennett'. ;-) — Wayfarer
And yet, many scientists of the 16th through 20th centuries were able to get through quite productive careers without nailing any living bodies to boards or sticking their fingers into any beating hearts. Even some philosophers lived their whole lives without demonstrating their convictions in such graphic fashion. — Vera Mont
Ad hominem means 'attacking the man not the argument'. I'm criticising the metaphysic which can overlook or endorse such activities. It's not an ad hominem argument. — Wayfarer
How does the additional fact of now knowing of Descartes' predilection for dog hammering affect your previous understanding of the Meditations? — Hanover
This just seems such an aside held out for outrage. — Hanover
It seems the question was whether Descartes' position regarding animals was consistent with the times, — Hanover
It is not as if he was hammering dogs' feet in the last year, which, if you don't admit would be worse, would only be to further deny the obvious, which is that his behavior then is measurably different than now. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.