@Wayfarer
Nothing Waywarer? Have a smidgen of intellectual honesty and say what it means to you, please. — praxis
This is what irredeemable intellectual dishonesty (i.e. shallow, derivative sophistry at best) looks like.↪praxis ‘those who have ears to hear, let them hear’. That doesn’t apply to everyone, there are those whose minds are irredeemably made up already. — Wayfarer
Yes.Essentially and in short, a living organism in an environment, trying to survive as well as as possible given the characteristics we have and the resources available to us or which we can acquire. Much like any other living organism. All else is nuance, dependent largely on circumstances and matters at hand. — Ciceronianus
The sense of self is a "modern" notion. Believe it or not, "self" did not exist in the cerebral happenings of humans in the primitive era. This is a modern philosophical idea, not a religious one.So a biological interpretation is what we’ve always known?
I highly doubt prehistorical people thought of themselves this way or spoke of themselves this way. — Xtrix
So a biological interpretation is what we’ve always known?
I highly doubt prehistorical people thought of themselves this way or spoke of themselves this way.
— Xtrix
The sense of self is a "modern" notion. Believe it or not, "self" did not exist in the cerebral happenings of humans in the primitive era. This is a modern philosophical idea, not a religious one. — Caldwell
No you did not say self. It was an implication from C's post and yours. It is relevant in the exchanges between you and C.I done see the relevance of this comment. I didn’t say anything about the concept of “self” not that it was a religious idea. — Xtrix
You certainly missed the philosophical part of my comment. That's why I emphasized it as philosophical. Referring to yourself is not what "self" in philosophical terms means, although for practical purposes, they did have awareness.Of course “primitive” humans referred to themselves, just as I said. There’s nothing philosophical about that— people do it all the time, and there are words in every language that does so. If you truly can’t distinguish between this ordinary usage and the technical notion of “self,” then that’s your problem. — Xtrix
Um...I'm not calling you unintelligent at all, but also not not saying you're conceited. — theRiddler
I don’t see this as being anything like religion nor philosophy. Those two distinctions are merely laid out for academic convenience but the underlying principles of human existence are still items of human existence. Giving authorship and agency to inanimate objects is also something human infants do before they can either walk or talk - in is a natural disposition (the psychological/neurological evidence for this is clear as can be). — I like sushi
‘those who have ears to hear, let them hear’. That doesn’t apply to everyone, there are those whose minds are irredeemably made up already. — Wayfarer
We're also a bunch of atoms nonetheless. We're also the "rational animal." We're also "creatures of God." We're also "minds" and "selves." To pick one of these and say "Here is the REAL truth" is just nonsense. It's an interpretation. That doesn't make it untrue -- it just means it's not the only truth. — Xtrix
The "REAL truth" isn't at issue. Your point as I recall was that we humans ask ourselves (among other things) "what we are" (I paraphrase). My contention is we know what we are, but enjoy thinking otherwise — Ciceronianus
I think that's what we're doing when we ask ourselves: What is a human being? — Ciceronianus
It happens we can be reasonably certain that we're made up of atoms. We're also reasonably certain that we're living creatures in a world with other things we interact with on a daily basis (putting aside the silly claims some philosophers are pleased to make now and then). It would be incorrect, though, for us to say human beings are "God's creatures" or creatures that have souls, for example. To the extent we make such claims when asking what we are, I think we engage in wishful thinking. Maybe we are, maybe we do, but to assert we are/do is unwarranted. — Ciceronianus
I don’t even know what you mean by ‘mystical looking glass’ nor would it seem obvious to anyone as it is too vague a statement. — I like sushi
"To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing", and also seem to claim that Nietsche was incapable of seeing this meaning. What are you referring to? What's the idea or sentiment behind this meaning that you mention? — praxis
Schopenhauer argues that, because (religions') function is to provide a system of metaphysics for the average person, who has a limited capacity to comprehend metaphysical truths, religion must be less direct when making its claims than philosophy. Religious teachings can be of “inestimable benefit” to the average person, but “with reference to the mental capacity of the great mass of people, they can only [present] an indirect, not a direct truth” (WWR II 168). This indirect truth is that which “has itself under the veil of allegory” (WWR II 169). Such allegories employ symbols, allusions, narrative tropes, figurative language, and cultural references from the time and place in which their author is writing to convey a deeper, more universal idea than one provided by a literal reading of the text. Schopenhauer discovered that this approach to writing and interpreting religious texts was common to mystical traditions arising in vastly different civilizations. He remarks on the similarities, when read allegorically, found “in the Oupnekhat (Upaniṣads), in the Enneads of Plotinus, in Scotus Erigena, in the passages of Jacob Bohme, and especially in the wonderful work of Madame de Guyon, Les Torres, and in Angelius Silesius, and finally also in the beautiful poems of the Sufis” (WWR II 612). — Nicholas Linhares
It happens we can be reasonably certain that we're made up of atoms. — Ciceronianus
The "REAL truth" isn't at issue. Your point as I recall was that we humans ask ourselves (among other things) "what we are" (I paraphrase). My contention is we know what we are, but enjoy thinking otherwise; in fact prefer to think otherwise--usually, that we're more than we are or appear to be. I think that's what we're doing when we ask ourselves: What is a human being? — Ciceronianus
I think Schopenhauer's understanding is nearer to that of the gnostics and to Eastern philosophy - which he acknowledges - which call for a kind of meta-cognitive shift, an insight into the nature of being and knowing. — Wayfarer
Add to that the basic mystery of the Real, of existence itself; questions that have had more and more elaborate stories, and more and more questioning of the stories themselves, spun around them over millennia and the modern situation doesn't seem so strange. — Janus
I'm merely suggesting that what prompts a person to ask "What is a human being?" isn't any confusion on the part of the person. The person has no doubt the person, and other persons, are human beings. That person doesn't have any problem distinguishing a human being from an owl, or an ant. — Ciceronianus
That's the context I like to think of when trying to answer these questions. To summarize:
(1) We're human beings, and we sometimes think.
(2) Sometimes this thinking is concerned with universal questions.
(3) These questions are called philosophical.
(4) So philosophy is a kind of thinking -- a kind that asks universal questions. — Xtrix
I kind of like this. Is this from a book or just your own stuff? — John McMannis
So any time I'm asking universal questions I'm doing philosophy? — John McMannis
What do you consider universal questions? — John McMannis
What about when I'm sweeping my floor and taking a shower? I'm thinking a lot there to, but it's not philosophical, so what is it? — John McMannis
Not many people ask themselves big questions.....does that mean most of us aren't philosophers? — John McMannis
That person doesn't have any problem distinguishing a human being from an owl, or an ant. — Ciceronianus
The person asking the question is either engaged in a kind of academic exercise, wishing to describe a human being for who knows what reason, or listing what it is that distinguished human beings from insects (for example) or wondering whether a human being is something more than what he/she/whatever already knows to be the case, or perhaps determine what a human being should be. — Ciceronianus
The question as to how to distinguish a human being from other animals, with its very obvious answers is not at all the same question as "what does it mean to be a human being", though. — Janus
They know/knew we get hungry, eat, procreate, fight--they and we know a great deal about what a human being is and would agree that such characteristics are common to human beings. There would be no dispute regarding whether a person was a human being having such characteristics. — Ciceronianus
These are issues, as you say, of interpretation. — Ciceronianus
It’s all interpretation. Once you’re thinking or talking about it, you’re interpreting. If you perceive, you’re interpreting. Take vision as an example. — Xtrix
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.