Like the lower forms of life, we human beings are very preoccupied with eating, sleeping, mating and defending. The difference is that lower forms of life are much less sensitive to inconveniences than are human beings. A tree stands in one spot for hundreds of years without complaining. During the mating season, male animals regularly duel with other males, risking severe injury or death without ever questioning why. Creatures of the wild are satisfied to live in trees, in the tall grass and in holes in the ground. To civilized human beings, such conditions are terribly inconvenient. Indeed, we organize ourselves into civilization as a means of freeing ourselves from such conditions. Yet ridding ourselves of discontent is not merely a matter of improved living conditions. We of the modern world are blessed with many extravagant conveniences. But though we eat, sleep, mate and defend with great sophistication, still anxiety, doubt and self- contempt gnaw at our hearts. Why? Because we are not free. We are trapped within the four walls of birth, old age, disease and death. Animals have not even an inkling of how to investigate a solution to old age, disease and death, whereas that solution is eagerly sought by legions of human intellectuals. Undeniably, human beings have a deeper mission of life to fulfill than do animals.
There are no "lower" forms of life - only different forms of life. Your judgment that a tree is lower than a human being is just anthropocentrism. Both species are the end products of the same process of evolution on Earth. Every successful species carves out its own niche in the environment. As a human being, you ought to be very glad indeed that there are organisms that like to eat your waste products, for example. Without them, your world would not last long. Yet ridding ourselves of discontent is not merely a matter of improved living conditions. We of the modern world are blessed with many extravagant conveniences. But though we eat, sleep, mate and defend with great sophistication, still anxiety, doubt and self- contempt gnaw at our hearts. Why? Because we are not free. We are trapped within the four walls of birth, old age, disease and death. Animals have not even an inkling of how to investigate a solution to old age, disease and death, whereas that solution is eagerly sought by legions of human intellectuals. Undeniably, human beings have a deeper mission of life to fulfill than do animals.[/QUOTE] More anthropocentrism. You assume that human concerns are "higher" and "deeper" than those of other animals.
JamesR your view is just mechanocentrism even if we want to give evolution the credence of a fact as opposed to a theory, your statement in no way suggests that humans are just as sensitive to inconveniences as trees once again, even if we want to let you run with the ball of evolution, your statement doesn't really touch on anything presented once again, that's okay, but it still doesn't offer much on how legions of human intellectuals strive to solve the problems of old age, disease and death, whereas the animals don't have an inkling on how to address these issues
James, So all forms of life are equal? Human, animal, plant, bacteria, virus? Do you use antibiotics when you're sick? Would you defend a child against an attack by an animal? Do you allow mosquittos to have their fill? Do you open your house to wildlife? Of course you don't. Your absurd extension of egalitarianism to the animal and plant kingdoms is nothing but an affectation, and a silly one at that. Plants are not sentient. Most animals are not either. Equating a sentient being with a piece of wood with leaves on it is utterly absurd.
madanthonywayne: What do you mean by "equal" here? I think you're making assumptions here. I'd say most animals are sentient. Agreed. Good thing I didn't do that, then.
I think that at this date in time, long having weaned ourselves of Descartes and his ilk on the issues of animals, it would take some serious mental gymnastics to NOT consider animals sentient. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This sen·tient /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-shuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. –noun 3. a person or thing that is sentient. 4. Archaic. the conscious mind.
From a pagan perspective I have to agree with my esteemed representative of the scientific tradition James R. that there is no reason to refer to 'lower species'. Our often TALLER brothers and sisters, the trees, are not lower in any generalized sense.
anything that is sentient is composed of the same nature - namely life - higher and lower refers to one's ability to deal with the issues of life - for instance the fact that tomes of humans spend their time dealing with philosophical issues that surround the nature of life, as opposed to complete absorption in issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending like the animals, indicates something "higher" - an animal cannot ask the question "what is this quality of sentience I have?", hence human society is distinguished from animal society
Neither can a person in a coma. Are you using capacity for philosohical reflection as a means of assigning some kind of value?
Humans are animals. ...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. (Douglas Adams)
hence we don't find any great communities of people in comas (outside of hospital wards) philosophy affects action action affects result result indicates value
If you are right, I'm not sure you said anything here. Concept being a concept and illusory also being one. The implied syllogism would also get thrown out.
'distinguished' sounds just peachy to me. Higher is a word - when not used literally - with a large burden of value judgements attached to it that I think are questionable. In many of the eastern religions (and Western rehashing of them) the upper chakras are considered better than the lower ones, for example. Talking about what distinguishes humans from trees, though I do think there is perhaps less than many realize, is one thing. I just saw no reason to assert such a value judgement. There have also been many trees I preferred to many humans.