There is 'being alive' and there is 'living'. It is unfortunate you have not seen the difference yet. If you keep digging down you may, perhaps, come to understand things differently. — I like sushi

So is this like Corvus in the other thread? Am I supposed to refer to the Hollywood movie where the curmudgeon main character learns that human connection is the most important thing?

does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Well, it entails a life. Any living organism is aware of its environment, which includes the organism. It is causally self-reflexive in the sense that it responds to its environment, and the fact that there is an environment causes its response.

Well, it entails a life. Any living organism is aware of its environment, which includes the organism. It is causally self-reflexive in the sense that it responds to its environment, and the fact that there is an environment causes its response. — jkop

That is what most animals do. But I am talking about self-awareness of existence (pretty just us).

I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk.

You can live what you preach or you can keep preaching. No skin off my nose.

I’m on a philosophy forum. Debating ideas.

I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk. — jkop

There’s a germ of truth in that but amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms.

amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms. — Wayfarer

The same type of reasoning has been used to justify discrimination against women, children, the poor, the sick, those of the wrong skin color, those "with too much dust in their eyes", those of the wrong religion, and then some.

:lol:

:yikes:

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

It seems to me obvious that self-awareness is the platform supporting the entire edifice of morality. Since it concerns proper behavior in society, morality assumes a basic structure of self and other.

The social contract organizes the relationship between the individual and society considered as one thing, a collective.

Without self-awareness, I don't see how moral principles and codes of professional ethics can even be developed, let alone practiced. Any kind of organized thinking about correct behavior going forward assumes the enduring point of view of an individual. Well, in the absence of self-awareness, individuals disappear.

Values fostered by morals anchor the sense of identity essential to individuality.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms. — ucarr

I thought this was an excellent insight here. Humans have to value something, hold it as a reason for pursuing before the pursuit. Before one ounce of ink is spilled over A -> B, or 1 + 1 = 2, one has to care. As one philosopher noted (and has become almost a mantra), there is an "aboutness" to consciousness, an "intentional stance". This takes the forms in different creatures, but in humans, the value seems primary. Yes there are reflexes and physical responses to stimuli or lack thereof, but most of everything takes on value-drives. But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended?

But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended? — schopenhauer1

As I'm thinking about it, the values are the conclusions. Consider drinking water and eating food. Of course, the sentient periodically experiences thirst and hunger. In the old days, carnivorous humans had to hunt game before they could eat. Hunting game is hard work. Individuals don't undertake hunting game unless they're sold on eating game to survive as holding status as a necessary value.

Perhaps there's an argument claiming instinct is separate from value. Okay. I'm guessing, however, that instincts light the way to core values. An example of this might be holding family as a core value based on the sexual instinct. Nature entices otherwise itinerant males into becoming family men through their sexual urges.