 |
Awashima | Dec 5, 2014 1:18 PM
I've never read her work so it might just be my mistake, but i feel as if to a certain extent the capacity seems applicable and utilized even to a certain extent in so far as the person exists. It seems intuitively impossible to leave absolutely no trace of impact on the world even if they did absolutely nothing but simply exist. But of course this wouldn't be the full utilization of the capacity but it stills seems that as long as your exist you passively use the capacity. But I think even a philosophical zombie would have the same capacity. But i might just be misunderstanding the work. And also i think the first moral claim is actually "Dying is bad for me, I must not die" |
 |
Lazhward | Dec 5, 2014 10:04 AM
Also, I believe "Hooga booga, food good, hungry bad, hooga booga" was the first moral claim ever made. |
|
Lazhward | Dec 5, 2014 10:03 AM
I believe Arendt sees it as a capacity, which is not always/necessarily utilised. She does say something along the lines of a person being dead to the world if they do not speak (and the concept of speech is a broad one in this context), but it's safe to assume most people 'speak', I think, unless you're a monk who never talks (an example she brings up, but in class this example didn't become entirely clear either); but I do suppose it might be accurate to consider people like those 'dead to the world' (the world of 'man').I think the importance of natality lies more, perhaps, in its historical significance for 'all of man'/mankind. The idea being that everyone, as soon as they are born, impact the world and human history through their participation. It's more an 'everyone's story matters' take on human history. I think the uniqueness of each person's contribution might be important though, that people have some sort of personal identity (perhaps shaped by a capacity of considering our subject position and reflecting on the self) which animals lack. I'm just brainstorming though, so I can's provide a very clear and concise answer =P |
|
Awashima | Dec 5, 2014 7:13 AM
Whoever was the first person to be considered a 'person' is probably the first person to decide for themselves what was right/wrong? lol |
 |
omponk_donk | Dec 5, 2014 6:22 AM
Awashima, can you tell me who was the first person who decides which one is "right" and which one is "wrong" ? |
|
Awashima | Dec 5, 2014 5:44 AM
Lazhward, but is our ability to do the unexpected something we should expect of us as human beings? In the narrative you seem to paint kind of presuppose the fact that we actually do unexpected things as if it was something we were expected to do. But what if our ability to create stories, change the world, etc was just the same as animals doing whatever it is they do. PleiadesRising, I think that is an interesting notion, but i think it could be better understood if you were to say that humans are the only species capable of finding something "wrong" and still do it regardless. |
|
Lazhward | Dec 5, 2014 3:53 AM
Well, what differs us from animals, going by what I said previously, is our natality: the capacity to act unexpectedly, uniquely, to bring forth something new and never before seen in the world by consequence of our existence. Our being born (hence 'natality') is different than that of animals because animals will just do whatever it is they do, we can do something out of the ordinary, we can perform actions which will create history; animals don't tell stories, don't make history, whilst we bring about unexpected changes by mere action.But that is by no means a conclusive answer, it is just my personal answer based on the reading of Arendt. Philosophy rarely provides clear answers; usually it only poses more questions. |
|
omponk_donk | Dec 5, 2014 3:00 AM
Well, are you tying to say that we, humans, are superior?In a way, yes, we are the most intelligent species known on the planet, but that's not what I'm talking about here.. What I am trying to say is.. something else We being born, grow up, learn, eat, poop, communicate, socialize, reproduce, raising children, die. Just like animals do, right? So again, what differs us from them? |
|
Lazhward | Dec 5, 2014 1:05 AM
I agree, looking at human capacity is a good starting point. I think Arendt would probably consider human capacity to consist of 'natality': our ability to do the unexpected. This is closely tied to he idea of action, thus what makes us human is our ability to truly act; bringing change upon the world according to our unique identities. |
 |
PleiadesRising | Dec 4, 2014 10:11 PM
There are simpler ways of making the distinction, e.g. we have thumbs, two eyes which discern certain wave-lengths of lights, and we join sites like this. However, when you add to that eclectic mix the notion of a higher degree of consciousness, then things get interesting.As far I I know, we're the only species capable of destroying all life on Earth in less than an hour, and that's just one of the many perks of having a higher degree of consciousness than, say, sea slugs. Perhaps one good way of getting a better idea of what consciousness means (or what entails from having it) is to see how those with it can affect their environment (understood broadly and narrowly). I know that's not a definition, but I do think it's worthwhile to notice what we're capable of doing with this thing called consciousness. |
|
omponk_donk | Dec 4, 2014 5:48 PM
Consciousness..What does consciousness mean? Where is it come from? When consciousness begin to exist in a human being? |
|
Awashima | Dec 4, 2014 4:39 PM
But I think there is something about consciousness that may intuitively at least appear as a good way of distinguishing the line between humans and animals. But what it comes down to if we decide to take this path is how far you are willing to enforce it. For example, if another species of animals showed signs of human consciousness what considerations do we have to make in regards to them both morally and epistemologically . |
|
Lazhward | Dec 4, 2014 3:46 PM
Yes, as research seems to show there are quite some animals with a large degree of consciousness. I would personally say 'consciousness' is not even close to solving the issue. |
|
Awashima | Dec 4, 2014 3:28 PM
Well thats true insofar as we can prove that animals don't have consciousness. And furthermore what your definition of consciousness means. |
|
Lazhward | Dec 4, 2014 1:15 PM
Gonzo: answering great philosophical questions in 3 words or less. |
 |
GonzoLewd | Dec 4, 2014 12:40 PM
We have consciousness! |
|
omponk_donk | Dec 4, 2014 9:34 AM
Hello, I'm new hereCan please someone tell me what differs us, human, from other creatures? (animal, etc) |
|
PleiadesRising | Nov 20, 2014 9:23 PM
I came across an idea a couple of days ago which slightly related to that idea of having no past (except it dealt with phenomenal consciousness). If I watch The Big O I'll make sure to remember that.I'm sure there's some Marxism in me (I too have my doubts about capitalism), but I've never explored his work too deeply. Still, it's difficult to avoid his work whenever you do any work in political philosophy. |
|
Lazhward | Nov 18, 2014 4:44 AM
I only read Marx for the first time last week, but not on religion. I doubt I'll ever dedicate myself to Marx however =POn the other hand, I'll be doing an in-depth reading of Heidegger in class at around Christmas; that should be very interesting. |
|
GonzoLewd | Nov 17, 2014 6:34 PM
Then I'll add The Big O, thanks for asking. :) |