Hi Janus.

It was not rhetorical in the sense that it should be widespread. Obviously it's not. I considered it a thought experiment.

But let's assume for a moment it was widespread and considered normal and natural. In the context given from the OP, it seems to me one has to parse the differences between human value systems, and primate or lower life-form behavior (the OP poodle) that emerges from instinct.

In either case, if there are little or no behavioral differences between lower life-forms and higher life-forms, then killing the OP's poodle for any reason whatsoever (including for consumption) becomes something more natural and acceptable as either a source for prey, or alternatively does not violate any other behavioral or ethical norms as part of our value systems.

And so in this simple way, humans then are, or become no more valuable, than other lower life-forms or other primates, animals, etc. and in this case, poodles. That's because we would hypothetically not know anything different, and neither would any other other animals know the difference. We would all act the same and would not bat an eye to cannibalism either. But since we know higher life-forms do know these behavioral differences, we value humans differently from poodles.

We still have cannibal behaviour in individuals who are not forced by extreme hunger or exposure to eat human flesh for survival. — god must be atheist

GMA!

Why isn't cannibal behavior widespread? (Or us it just a genetic accident.)

The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

I agree with this. Using logic, it would be not that much different than making the synthetic a priori judgement, which is used in physics that: all events must have a cause! It drives proposition's that can be tested.

Thank you, I will ponder that which you wrote and reply soon!

180!

I'm confused. Why did you even comment then. Did you not expect to get questioned?

Are you trolling my threads again? Are you an angry atheist?

I will be copying the moderator's on your posts. (Here we go again with the angry Atheist routine :joke: )

You know, rather than a rapid-fire slinging of shit on the wall to see what sticks, actually think about how you're formulating/asking of a question might solicit an answer that genuine intellectual curiosity would seek. Refinement might also avoid confusion, digression and misunderstanding. Try to find the "lead" from the get-go, rather than spending pages of two ships passing in the night. And then lead with that. — James Riley

Wow. that's precisely what you did James !

How about this, just to show you I'm not blowing smoke, I'll offer you an olive branch. If you're so convinced you made a persuasive enough case, then start a thread and I'll be glad to debate you! Otherwise, I see you descending into a pit of ad hominem and/or getting way off topic here because of some emotional trip. (In other words, using logic, let's put your comments to the test!)

Alternatively, though at the risk of redundancy, you may want to consider your people (oops) animal skills here :joke:

"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Hahaha! Don't take it personal :wink:

Otherwise, you might want to consider working on your people/emotional skills... . Oops, oh yeah, forgot, you're not human; according to your philosophy you're no different than an animal!!

So much for your theory :joke:
LOL

My assignment was completed :joke:

You weren't able to make your case about the differences between animal behavior and human behavior, much less human value judgements. I called you to task, and you just basically said, it is what it is. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.

Until next time!

Who said it ever started? — James Riley

Good question.

That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems — James Riley

Yep. And that's what you failed to include in your theory. Sorry.

So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front? — James Riley

Not at all. As I said, you failed to include the distinction.

Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to. — James Riley

What do 'circumstances' mean? Is that a value judgement?

And if it is, why should we be discouraged from eating dogs? Did evolution tell us to? How so?

It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity. — James Riley

I did. But your theory of evolution still lacks the justification necessary for the complexities of human behavior. Sorry.

You make a false distinction when you say "like some other animals do" as if no other animals don't, as if we are unique in the animal kingdom. We are not. On the one hand, we will eat each other if it comes down to it and, on the other hand, there are omnivores and carnivores that don't.

Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution?

If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value. — James Riley

I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you.

Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. — James Riley

But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument.

So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans — James Riley

That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification?

They are what they are. — James Riley

What does that mean?

We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value. — James Riley

We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution?
If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right?

I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position.

you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen
I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with. — James Riley

James!

That's exactly what I'm arguing. You are thinking it's a digression. It's not. It should be an integral part of your theory. Right?

As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing.

We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it. — James Riley

And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP?

I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,

1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them. — James Riley

...far from it, I'm making you think through your theory, and poking holes in it accordingly. Hence my answers:

1. Based upon your theory, yes.
2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. You only said we are like lower life forms and kill each other for resources (wars). I get that part.
3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans
4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior.
5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve.

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

180!

How is that..., can you provide examples to your supposition? I like your notion of some sort of illusionary element to the conscious mind (abstractness, metaphysical structure, unexplained phenomena, perception of Time, and the like), which is one argument. But the other part of fine-tuning is intriguing. How is this fine tuning done by the human mind?

Don't forget to include something v. nothing in your response. Meaning, include inanimate physical matter in your thought process. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution. We can ferret all that stuff out later based upon your reply...

Consciousness does not arise from matter.

Subjects do not arise from matter either. — 180 Proof

What does consciousness/subjects arise from?

Chaos is not randomness. — 180 Proof

Of course it's not. No exceptions taken.

Natural selection is not random, nor chance. — Banno

Please share your theory. How does your statement square with random mutation and genetic accident?

I think there are at least two issues to parse there:

1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.

2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans. — 3017amen
I think most humans are instinctively repulsed by the thought of eating human flesh. But any of us might do it in circumstances of dire hunger. Eating the flesh of those who have already died in some disaster scenario is one thing, killing others to feed ourselves is another. Can any of us reliably know what we would do in dire circumstances, sitting pretty with food aplenty as we are at present? — Janus

Sure. we don't typically gravitate to such behavior. And of course, those types of barbaric acts in most cases depend upon the individual's value system. And that's whether or not they're starving. It just depends on the person.

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen
I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike. — James Riley

Not sure where the disconnect is, but that's ok. This seems to keep rearing its head, but it's precisely on point. And that is, you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. Did I miss your argument there?

Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said: — James Riley

True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous.

Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory. — James Riley

We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc..

I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals. — James Riley

Thanks James. Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you?

You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.

Honestly, am I missing your point?

That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?
— 3017amen

We would if food was not abundant. It's not a matter of "should care". but " do care" or "don't care", which largely depend on what we can afford to care about, or at least pay lip;service to caring about. — Janus

Hi Janus!

Long time no talk hope you are doing well!

Of course we have some unfortunate history to reflect on here. For instance we know in the 17th century during the founding of Jamestown there were horrid acts of cannibalism, as a substitute for a lack of food during that winter crises.

That being said, have you thought thru the supposition insofar as extending it to a value system that supports cannibalism?

I think there are at least two issues to parse there:

1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.

2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans.

Those questions may seem rhetorical, but un covering simple human motivations for basic needs might shed light on why we are valued more that other primates.

In the spirit of the OP's example, so far what I'm hearing is it doesn't matter whether we kill the poodle or the human in order to survive. Primates are primates, otherwise lower life forms/animals (?).

Personally, I am not convinced that everything happens through random mutations, natural selection and chance, but I am aware that my view is probably a minority view on this site. — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack!

Indeed, I share your thoughts. There is much common sense thinking that goes along with those truncated models of anthropy.

We know that there is a certain amount of randomness and uncertainty as uncovered in the physical world through QM, mathematical structures, and so on. However, this is distinct from there being complete chaos...

No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other? — James Riley

That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. That's one reason why I said:

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen
Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism. — James Riley

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow.

Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be.

When in fact all arguments are so, that is no argument can substantiate its own conclusion. — forrest-sounds

I'm not sure that is correct. A priori arguments are such that by mere definition of the words and concepts used (in the premise/proposition) that the conclusion is always going to be either true or false with a higher degree of certainty. In everyday common usage or general terms, that would be considered resolution of something using pure objectivity, or pure reason. I know you didn't want us to mention deduction but... .

Lazy because it allows one to dismiss arguments by nature of their form alone, without having to contend with the meaning and purpose of an argument. And dishonest because one does so without ever stating that all arguments are in fact equally poor in this respect. — forrest-sounds

Did you happen to have an example of what you were thinking about when you did the OP? For instance, of course there are all types of induction methods having varying degrees of probability that are very intriguing to parse through. I can appreciate your concern.

Some argue that all deduction is boring in that no new or real novel kinds of knowledge gets realized. Ironically, that's only partially true, hence the need for induction (and other things).

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen
Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food. — James Riley

But your theory states that we should, no?

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. Thanks, I got my answer.

why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley

In what ways? For instance, are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance? And of so, why aren't we all doing that during procreation activities?

And if only some of us are, then it begs the question why not all?

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen
We do. — James Riley

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. Now that we've gotten past any absurdity, why is cannibalism wrong? For instance, since you said 'yes' to that question ( in your reply), it seems we are stuck with using logic to justify that behavior... (?) .

Why should we care? — 3017amen
Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.

are those questions reasonable — 3017amen
Yes. — James Riley

James, I'm not following you on that one. Can you provide a short example that would elucidate this need to be different? You have replied in the affirmative that these questions are reasonable, thank you. Please share your theory.

Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space. — James Riley

I'm sorry James, perhaps I'm missing the obvious. What are you trying to argue?

Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again. — James Riley

Okay that's something to work with. Are you saying we have been remiss or negligent in not properly endorsing societal cannibalism of sorts (because we don't see that happening on a large scale)?

Too, why do you feel there are "problems" (what are these problems/what do they consist of)? For example, in your suppositions, if there is a minimal amount of food resources, we still have other people to kill in order to satisfy those needs, so no problem there. And if you are thinking that 'real problems' consist of sentient things like boredom, depression, etc., would that not square with your theories of not valuing human quality of life impulses? In other words, you would not be consistent in your theory that we should value the need to kill each other for food, because sentience and quality of life concerns should be irrelevant there.

Please correct me, but that's my takeaway from your suppositions.

I'm going to take a Darwinian stance on this — TheMadFool

I have another thought. Suppose Darwinian survival advantages include all primates (which'n theory they do). And suppose that those advantages are intrinsically baked into emergent properties (genetically coded). Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect.

That being said, why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? Why should we care?

Though seemingly absurd on the surface, are those questions reasonable (treating like cases likely; different cases differently)? And if they are absurd, why?

It’s not my theory, it’s Darwin’s. — Daemon

Ok, keep going. So I ask again, how does Darwinian survival of the fittest explain self-aware sentient Being?

You seem to be struggling with this so let me try to help you. Does the ability to compute the laws of gravity provide for any survival advantages in the jungle?

Self aware sentience has reproductive advantages. — Daemon

Awesome! Please share your theory, if you have one??

Natural selection. — Daemon

....keep going. And how does natural selection provide for self-aware sentient Being?

don't really see where logic comes into it. Logic, like mathematics and information is an abstract description of the world rather than being the world itself. It's an idea. Evolution isn't driven by ideaslike logic or mathematics. — Daemon

Really? Logic is a feature/attribute of consciousness. And so you seem to be reversing your philosophy since humans use mathematics and information to describe the world.

Otherwise, what is evolution (theory itself) driven by then?

Thank you! What are the implications, I wonder? In other words, you're making the leap from biology to self-aware sentient Being, using logic, how is that possible?

doesn't operate from information. It's biological. — Daemon

The word biology is derived from the greek words /bios/ meaning /life/ and /logos/ meaning /study/ and is defined as the science of life and living organisms. An organism is a living entity consisting of one cell e.g. bacteria, or several cells e.g. animals, plants and fungi.

Biology is the scientific study of life.[1][2][3] It is a natural science with a broad scope but has several unifying themes that tie it together as a single, coherent field.[1][2][3] For instance, all living organisms are made up of cells that process hereditary information encoded in genes, which can be transmitted to future generations. Another major theme is evolution, which explains the unity and diversity of life.[1][2][3] Finally, all living organisms require energy to move, grow, reproduce, and regulate their internal environment.[1][2][3][4][5]

1. How does evolutionary biology square with self-awareness and sentient Being? Using logic, how can we connect the dots(?)

Nice OP, in that I concede to the informational distinction(s). As an example (which is worth redundancy here), matter relates to information just like abstract mathematics (metaphysics) relate to matter. — 3017amen
Well, you're right there, but that's exactly what's wrong with OP's idea.

Abstract can be defined as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

Mathematics is thought about aspects of the world. It is not the world itself.
Information is also abstract, it is our thoughts about aspects of the world. — Daemon

I agree, however, it begs at least one question. And that is, what do you consider "the world itself"?
In other words, we know mathematics has the unreasonable effectiveness in describing the cosmos, and that description by definition is abstract, much like consciousness itself.

Cosmologically, existing things eventually can only be described (for a lack of complete explanation) through abstract mathematical structures (neurons, protons, etc.). — 3017amen
Right again: abstract mathematical structures are only descriptions. Somebody is doing the describing. The neurons and protons are aspects of the world, the descriptions are ideas, thoughts. The neurons and protons carry on doing what they do regardless of our (incomplete) description. — Daemon

No exceptions taken. Thanks!

As a thought experiment, if consciousness operates from energy and information, what are neurons and protons connection/relationships, I wonder?

:up:

As it is you seem congenitally unable to answer any question. You've made a substantive evaluation of my post, that it is incoherent and gibberish. See if you can get enough of your foot out of your mouth to say why you think so. I'll read and acknowledge any sense you make. — tim wood

As I've said, gibberish is gibberish :joke:

True, but even worse than claiming that in a 50 lb. sack of rice there are a few grains of rice. True, that is, but at the same time terribly and ignorantly wrong. It's the kind of mistake that anyone who knows does not make. If she told me what time it was, I'd look at a clock. — tim wood

For fun, Tim Wood's usual ad hominem and/or trolling commentary [questions to Tim Wood from his quote above]:

1. What is so "ignorant" about the OP?
2. What kind of mistake should one know not to make, relative to the subject matter?
3." If she told me what time it was, I'd look at a clock"??? (What does that mean?)

Make clear what was incoherent or gibberish. — tim wood

Not sure that's possible, since gibberish is gibberish :joke:

What am I supposed to make of that? Claim - true. Claim - true - wrong. — James Riley

Yup. I wondered the same thing; a kind of incoherent gibberish.

Einstein's most impressive understanding was his ability to recognize his audiences comprehension.
Knowing that reality can not be explained, humor fills the void! — Rxspence

:up:

He meant that the universe is basically a metaphysical, universal language :joke: In this case, diatonic intervals of root-and-fifth!

Good question!!

1. How does matter relate to information? — hypericin

Nice OP, in that I concede to the informational distinction(s). As an example (which is worth redundancy here), matter relates to information just like abstract mathematics (metaphysics) relate to matter.

If we concede that underlying reality, and the nature thereof, lies abstract mathematical formula's (descriptions), then the argument of a distinct informational structure strengthens. As an example of course we know that behind the structure of a building design lies mathematical formulas. And we know cosmologically, existing things eventually can only be described (for a lack of complete explanation) through abstract mathematical structures (neurons, protons, etc.).

Consciousness it seems, is part of an abstract structure. (Which in turn, philosophically, is not such of a tall leap to the idea of Platonic realities.) Too, one could look at causal relationships from the QM phenomenon which is tied to observation (double slit experiments, etc.) and see an underlying independence of matter. Which in turn, is 'explained' again through abstract mathematical structures (metaphysics).

For fun, there is also another Causal argument:

If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. If psychological explanation goes, so do the closely related notions of agency and moral responsibility. Clearly, a good deal rides on a satisfactory solution to the problem of mental causation [and] there is more than one way in which puzzles about the mind's "causal relevance" to behavior (and to the physical world more generally) can arise.

Feel free to poke holes...

From another vantage point, I agree that Greed has little to do with natural selection/Darwinism/biological advantages and so on, particularly relative to happiness, selfishness and other features of consciousness and the human condition. From a socioeconomic perspective, we see that it's not money that's the root of evil, it's the love of it. We also see this from trickle-down economic policies, that in theory have merit, but the last great recession proved otherwise. It proved that some professionals/CEO's were hoarding their money (in a strange way kind of reminds me of what's happing right now with gasoline--->toilet paper/pandemic).

Anyway, back to ethics. Hanover is right in that there needs to be balance. And that one should treat like cases likely and different cases differently. But unfortunately partisan politics rears its ugly head again here. There are those fiscal conservatives who complain about gas prices, viz. regulations that prevent companies from taking advantage of people (the current gas price gouging law in NC, and the natural gas/public utility prices in Texas) are having to square the circle of less tax regulations for the rich or just less regulations in general. Some regulations actually do protect people from Greed. We saw that in Texas. So hypocrisy seems to rule the day for them. In other words, if it doesn't benefit them, they don't like it. How selfish is that?

I wouldn't worry though. They're not thinking things through. History has demonstrated that those who are extremely greedy and selfish don't last. I would say to them, desire what you already have. Alternatively, it begs the question, how much is enough? Or, from the other extreme:

"The secret of happiness, you see, is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less" — Socrates

Do you think we need more moderate's in our social, political and religious institutions?

I found your answer very insightful and enlightening.
I had never considered how wonder persists despite receiving answers to the questions that perhaps elicited it in the first place. If anything it is as tho confirmation of the basis for wonder by receiving answers or insights encourages it to persist. As it does in me writing this response having learned a lot from what you replied with. — Benj96

Well thank you kindly for the compliment, I'm not worthy. BUT :joke: I will offer some response here. Firstly, wonder is a wonderful thing. I contemplated/studied wonderment for awhile in trying to figure out what kind of purpose or impact that it had on me and the so-called human condition. And I found it to be quite miraculous. The power that it gives us is extraordinary. As was mentioned, it should be embraced and nurtured where possible. Typically, there is more benefit than not (given the right conditions of freedom, etc..).

Second, wonderment drives me personally in a way that is exciting. For instance, I opened a thread recently and was able to discover/uncover a concept (Structuralism) from an atheist philosopher whose interpretation inspired my own thoughts about metaphysics. Speaking of which, wonderment is just that (or if you care to parse the nature of wonderment itself viz consciousness you are more than welcome to poke holes). Alternatively too, that was yet another Kierkegaardian irony in life. Knowledge can come from the most unexpected places, but if you don't walk the path, how is Revelation going to cross it (?). Life is about doing. Being and becoming, right?

That said, your following comment dovetails to this thought/recommendation. Since Maslow taught us that much of living this life includes both a discovery and uncovery of Being, we can find much joy, happiness and excitement when we, in this case, learn something new by exercising our minds, hence your concern:

But it’s incredibly difficult. And each person I think likely requires a different trigger to put the purpose or “soul” back into their pursuit of an existence. If we could only create some formula of how to engage ones intrinsic passions - we would be on the right track. — Benj96

Maslow (psychologist turned philosopher) talked a lot about your 'intrinsic passions', and I highly recommend any of his books to your friend. His first book is The Psychology of Being is an easy read and was groundbreaking at the time. That book explores the extremes of our human thought process (cognition and values), from the rather bleak side of the human condition, to the highest side of the human experience in concepts:

(Truth: honesty; reality; simplicity; richness; oughtness; beauty; pure, clean and unadulterated; completeness; creativity, essentiality Goodness: rightness; desirability; oughtness; justice; benevolence; honesty Beauty: rightness; form; aliveness; simplicity; richness; wholeness; perfection; completion; uniqueness; honesty Wholeness: unity; integration; tendency to one-ness; interconnectedness; simplicity; organization; structure; dichotomy-transcendence; order
Aliveness: process; non-deadness; spontaneity; self-regulation; full-functioning
Uniqueness: idiosyncrasy; individuality; non-comparability; novelty
Perfection: necessity; just-right-ness; just-so-ness; inevitability; suitability; justice; completeness; "oughtness". Completion: ending; finality; justice; fulfillment; finis and telos; destiny; fate
Justice: fairness; orderliness; lawfulness; Simplicity: honesty; essentiality; abstract, essential, skeletal structure Richness: differentiation, complexity; intricacy Effortlessness: ease; lack of strain, striving or difficulty; grace; perfect, beautiful functioning Playfulness: fun; joy; amusement; gaiety; humor; exuberance; effortlessness Self-sufficiency: autonomy; independence; not-needing-other-than-itself-in-order-to-be-itself; self-determining; environment-transcendence; separateness; living by its own laws.)

There's a lot to think about there for sure.... .

Happy Tuesday!

I think you already arrived at the answer, in that, generally speaking, it's mostly about achieving a balance. And, one should try to be reasonable (treat like cases likely/different cases differently) in their approach or determination as to which discursive hat to wear. Obviously, some domain's or subject matter (like formal logic/abstract study of propositions, symbols, etc.) requires more technical knowledge than others (than say ethics). (Not that I'm an expert in any of them.)

But since nobody really broached this thought, I'll offer an analogy. Some may consider doing philosophy is a little like writing a book, writing music, or creating or inventing something/anything novel in their respective fields of expertise, etc.. Accordingly, an architect who copies Frank Lloyd Wright designs, or an individual songwriter/musician who exclusively performs cover music (copies pre-recorded original's) is doing simply that--regurgitating/copying something that was previously designed/written/recorded. That same individual can also decide to possibly design something novel or in this sense write their own music. That individual took those influences from the original design/recordings, and decided to make them their own. So just like Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant, Eric Clapton was influenced by B.B. King.

Since to me everyone here is unique, yet the same, I say bring to the dance your own influences and your own sense of creativity, where it's appropriate. In some cases, allow yourself to practice philosophy based upon not only your own formal training, but also your real world experiences, that is as much a part of your own truth (and your truth only), as someone else's truth that you read about.

Don't be afraid of yourself :smile:

I'm honored you found some of it helpful (and I hope they do to...).
:up:

If there is an answer to that, then, once we lead someone to curiosity, a great leap will have been made.

Sadly, many people do not open themselves to wonder for fear that it may distract them or upset their equilibrium. After all, wonder is wounding, and thaumais only one letter removed from ‘trauma’. To wonder is also to wander, to stray from society and its norms and constructs, to be alone, to be free—which is, of course, deeply subversive, and why even organized religions need to tread a fine line with wonder. To rationalize the fear of it, wonder is dismissed as a childish and self-indulgent emotion that is to be grown out of rather than encouraged or nurtured.

(thaúma – a wonder, evoking "emotional" astonishment (gaping) at the marvel, i.e. performed to powerfully strike the viewer personally (uniquely, individually)

James,

The metaphysics associated with the feelings of wonderment are actually very normal. The infamous Kantian judgement or proposition that 'all events must have a cause' is at the source of much human advancement. There should be no fear there. But rather, some level of excitement in the unknown, and all that could be... .

Similarly, as self-aware Beings, it should be natural to seek answers to such questions. And it is certainly natural or normal for one to ask questions themselves...

In the Metaphysics , Aristotle says that it is wonder that led the first philosophers to philosophy, since a man who is puzzled thinks of himself as ignorant and philosophizes to escape from his ignorance. Wonder is a complex emotion involving elements of surprise, curiosity, contemplation, and joy. It is perhaps best defined as a heightened state of consciousness and emotion brought about by something singularly beautiful, rare, or unexpected—that is, by a marvel.Curiosity derives from the Latin cura , ‘care.'

To be curious about something is to desire knowledge of that thing. Knowledge extinguishes curiosity, but not wonder. Like Plato and Aristotle, the philosopher AN Whitehead noted that ‘philosophy begins in wonder’, but then added that, ‘at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains.’ Wonder in the sense approaching awe is a universal experience found also in children (picture a child at the circus) and perhaps even in higher-order primates and some other animals.

Socratic wonder, in contrast, is much more rarefied, and, as Socrates implies by calling it ‘the feeling of a philosopher’, not given to everyone. Today, most young people who go to university do so for the sake, not of marveling or even learning, but of gaining a piece of paper with which to advance their career prospects—entirely bypassing the wonder and wisdom that might have rescued them from needing a career in the first place.











I submit, if we did not have the insatiable ability to wonder; science, technology, humanities and otherwise all of human life, would look totally different. Our quality of life would not be what it is today. It begs the question, how else do we define this impetus that makes or causes us to create a life of possibility, happiness or joy?