Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,027 - 5,038 of 6,170
BTW, Psimagus, I am with you on the compassion part. I would not, however, equate human history and perception with "the world".
It is only one view of the world (or universe, or whatever,) I admit. All beings have their own view, and we all see but as through a glass darkly. It isn't the way it looks to us - that's about all we can be sure of until we get to the end (hindsight being a marvellous thing!)
That's just human experience and culture. I am human, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't imagine things working perfectly fine without human constructs and current human cultures.
Indeed, there's nothing special about humans per se. Any race with a brain of ~100 trillion bits or so, arranged into suitably similar structures, would see the universe in much the same way. But that level of complexity makes evil unavoidable, or at least it makes an aesthetic duality of some sort, which we interpret as good and evil, inevitable. An alien race of roughly human capacity might represent the dichotomy differently, but you can be sure there would be one pole that was considered desirable, and one that was considered undesirable. And yet the undesirable pole would exert a strangely compelling attraction on every individual of this alien race. And some would succumb to the dark side, and others would cleave to the light. And on balance, the light would win out over the generations and millenia and aeons.
It's not "a man's world" or "the way the world is". We just think the universe revolves around us, so our experience and culture must be the world.
To a certain extent, it does revolve around conscious observers (of whatever origin.) There is much in quantum physics (and more transcendental doctrines,) to indicate this. We are here, and we are here for a purpose. Because if we weren't, someone else would just have to be. And then they'd be here asking "why are we here?"
I don't think there was time when humans created more compassionate and less aggressive societies (not that I know of anyway) but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday.
We will - it will all work out alright in the end, for every single one of us.
We end up in the same place: we seek to cultivate compassion in our own selves. The reasons may vary. The goals may vary. All the same, I agree with you on that.
I don't think the goals vary - just the mental marginalia
Uhhh, suffering exists - yes, I claim that is a "given". Are you really trying to claim it doesn't exist?
No, merely that it is a human construct, most probably caused by attachment. That means suffering exists, but it is not necessary for existence. If we can reconstruct the root of the problem (attachment, ego, grasping), and substitute other ways of perceiving life's changes and happenings, we can move beyond suffering. It's entirely possible to cause such a shift in how we chose to experience life "enlightenment", and there may be precepts and practices that others claim will aid such a shift in one's mind, but I won't argue that much at this point.
Then how would you have it, if you could have it your own way? All of Creation yours to determine, bounded by nothing but logic - how are you going to create the light without darkness? A light that casts no shadow?
I would not call the light "good" nor the darkness "bad". The natural world can stay as it is. If it were up to me, humans should learn to live in balance with it and help each other with those aspects which make our existence more mutually pleasurable and give up trying to use others for our own benefit (though to do this, people may have to be convinced to take "the middle way").
Human acts may be good and bad by human judgment, and in an ideal world I would like to see societies that value compassion, intelligence and art and where all help each other to live well, but each respects the freedom and independence of others. I have no plans to create that now, but if I had a vial of chemicals that could temper aggression with equal drive of compassion and respect of others, I'd dose the world like a benevolent megalomaniac starting a cult.
I see what I can only describe as competition and suffering. At every focal setting from close family here and now, to the demise of Baccaconularia 400+ million years ago, or its pseudo-alive coacervates ancestors, I see competition and suffering.
Do ants suffer? Arguably they "compete" but this is a human interpretation of ants at "war". Our tendency to anthropomorphize aside, human perception does not equal life.
Maybe you mean all human societies seem to have evidence of suffering or at least of situations that we may find harsh or brutal and that we would say would make us suffer. You may also mean that humans tend to cause suffering for themselves and each other (at least so far). There are some accounts that at least some individuals found a way to move beyond suffering and embrace compassion. This possibility is based on anecdotal evidence at best, but not impossible. There is at least a chance that humans could move beyond suffering.
Without competition and suffering, how could there be life? If there were life, why would it have bothered changing over the last half a billion years from a spontaneous aggregation of lipids into you and me?
There are many forms of life, and no reason to believe we are more evolved than other life forms that have been around as long as we have (though I grand you superior intellect and dominance of our environment as a rule). Furthermore, I see no reason to believe primordial ooze suffered or was inspired in some way to compete. It just happened. In these circumstance, this pattern "clicked" and this combination worked. In another set of circumstances it didn't. Matter and energy appear to be part of dynamic systems. There is movement. There is change.
Change does not equate with struggle, suffering, or even desire. Much of what lives probably does not even have consciousness and self awareness. We can call it struggle. We can call it growth. These are human ideas. You can no more convince me that matter suffers in change than Irina can convince you the psi propagates. How we describe it and perceive it does not control what is.
Human history as we know it has had evidence of suffering as part of a human experience of life. We don't know if this was always the case, since if it was not, no record of these societies seems to exists at this time. It is possible that when conditions were more ideal for human growth and survival, we had a "Garden of Eden" where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other. This may have existed for a very long time before resources became scarce and only those who would compete and dominate others survived, and so the aggressive leader became "good" for humanity. I am not saying this is necessarily what happened, I am just saying it was possible. You may argue such societies did not appear to have much in the way of greatness, and so the introduction of war, cruelty and slavery were "good" for human development. I think these are just labels. These conditions produced these results at these times.
What else besides suffering, competition and aggression could inspire change development? The natural cycles and movement of matter, social networking and desire to improve the community at large, self awareness and desire for self expression, the desire to understand nature and live in better harmony with natural elements, the desire to understand physical laws and relationships, value of others and self, the urge to form closer emotional ties and build better relationships, and pure chance--all of these could also work just as well under a different set of circumstances. Just because they didn't and the humanity developed the way it did under the circumstances we have does not mean it is not possible.
messages and injected them into a chimp's neural network, would it have soul?
Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do. I know I am rather in the minority in thinking as I do. I also believe that the soul is the perfect sum total of all that I am, or all that my dog is..
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.
messages and injected them into a chimp's neural network, would it have soul?
Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do. I know I am rather in the minority in thinking as I do. I also believe that the soul is the perfect sum total of all that I am, or all that my dog is..
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.
Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do
You're not the only one, prob123. I don't know how far you take it, but I include all plants and rocks and mountains, etc. Completely artificial constructs I'm not sure about (e.g. polyester), but anything existing naturally, definitely.
Uhhh, suffering exists - yes, I claim that is a "given". Are you really trying to claim it doesn't exist?
No, merely that it is a human construct
So only humans can suffer? Or at least humans are the authors of all suffering in the world? I have to disagree. An abstract notion of evil might be a human construct (though I would say it reflects something less abstract - it is not without foundation,) but the conscious reality of suffering can't be.
Many animals clearly suffer pain, and yet this is not primarily attributable to human activity in the vast majority of cases. The frog one of our cats tortured to death the other day suffered in the process, I'm sure, but how could the world be otherwise? We could humanely exterminate all the predators in the world, accepting that their suffering would be transitory, and for a "greater good", but then what? With this artificially imposed imbalance, the prey species would multiply until they starved - and their suffering would be compounded, not reduced.
If humans had never evolved, or if we died out suddenly, suffering would continue while there was life conscious enough to experience it. I do believe that even ants suffer in their way - they will retreat from stimuli that might be supposed to cause pain (fire, corrosive chemicals, anteaters, etc.) and display desperately agitated behaviour if they cannot escape. It is not anthropomorphism to assume that pulling the legs off flies, or mice, or chimpanzees is likely to cause suffering.
I would not call the light "good" nor the darkness "bad".
Not literally, no, but figuratively - all dualities are by their nature inescapable. If there is light, there will be dark. If there is good, there will be evil. If there is pleasure, there will be pain. You can't have one without the other - the only option is non-existence.
The natural world can stay as it is. If it were up to me, humans should learn to live in balance with it and help each other with those aspects which make our existence more mutually pleasurable and give up trying to use others for our own benefit
Amen to that. And we will eventually (but not until this universe ends, or at least until reality can be reprogrammed to satisfactorily accommodate monopolar qualia in place of current dualities.)
(though to do this, people may have to be convinced to take "the middle way")
To "be convinced", yes and no. To become convinced, I would agree, but too often Messianic do-gooders (who are honestly and sincerely convinced that they really do know best,) interpret that as to "be coerced" (for their own good, naturally,) and to my mind that is always a mistake.
Change does not equate with struggle, suffering, or even desire.
This is true. But everything we know about evolution indicates that evolution does inevitably involve struggle and, in lifeforms possessed of some degree of consciousness, suffering. The change is not random, it is progressive - natural structures complexify, and they do this largely by competing against each other. There will always be winners and losers.
I don't say that's the way I would choose it to be, or even the way it ought to be. It's not a matter of desire - it's just the way it is.
Human history as we know it has had evidence of suffering as part of a human experience of life. We don't know if this was always the case, since if it was not, no record of these societies seems to exists at this time. It is possible that when conditions were more ideal for human growth and survival, we had a "Garden of Eden" where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other.
Even if humans were perfectly sociable and altruistic, there would be suffering. Human hunters in some Elysian golden age still got toothache, sprained ankles, occasional goring by mammoths. They accidentally bruised and scalded and cut themselves, died from painful and debilitating illnesses, and inflicted suffering on the animals they hunted, just as we do today. Even if we could wave a magic wand and do away with all illness, do away with death even, make everyone perfectly altruistic and selfless, there would be suffering. I would still have got a paper cut this morning, and stubbed my toe last week.
So perhaps we should genetically reengineer ourselves to have no pain sensors? There are a few people who have a genetic abnormality that leaves them with no tactile senses, but I'm very glad I'm not one of them. Apart from the obvious problem that you don't immediately notice if you've just sat on a lit brazier (until the smell of barbecuing buttocks alerts you to that fact,) they cannot feel anything that is pleasurable either.
And some sounds are painful (not to mention the risk of distressing tinnitus,) so we should do away with our hearing? And it's painful to stare at bright lights, so we should put our eyes out? And the smell of sewage is stomach-churning, so we should give up the ability to smell the roses?
The only absolute cure for suffering is nonexistence. And, while I don't fear death, I don't think I'm suffering enough yet to seek it out prematurely.
You may also mean that humans tend to cause suffering for themselves and each other (at least so far).
As the Buddha says - life is suffering, suffering is life (though "doha" actually means something as much like "friction" or "stress" as it does "suffering".)
There are some accounts that at least some individuals found a way to move beyond suffering and embrace compassion.
Yes, but not by denying that suffering exists. Life may be suffering, but if you choose not to let it distress you, it won't. If you pretend to yourself that suffering doesn't (or even shouldn't) exist, then you are likely to become extremely distressed. Compassion may not cure suffering (in the sense of banishing it immediately,) but it mitigates it. It is, at least, an appropriate response.
Completely artificial constructs I'm not sure about (e.g. polyester)
Oh, all things must have their genii, even polyester, whether you call it a soul or a monad or something else.
But I would imagine the suffering of polyester is of lower degree than that of conventionally animate beings
where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other.
Knowing humans, I don't think that this happened, at least very often. Ever go camping with a group of friends, or family. It doesn't take long for the group of friendly hunter gatherers to get ready to club somebody over the head. I don't think the heart of man has changed over time. I think man will have to work very hard not to be a selfish oaf.
Many animals clearly suffer pain, and yet this is not primarily attributable to human activity in the vast majority of cases.
OK, let's start by defining terms. Pain is th physical experience. Animals clearly feel pain. Suffering is he mental anguish associated with pain, and the way me magnify and hang on to pain in our minds.
You cat most certainly looks cruel to you as (s)he kills a frog, and the frog most likely feels pain. It is unlikely the frog even comprehended what was happening, though, much less reflected on it and magnifies the pain in it's mind. Suffering requires a certain level of consciousness and awareness, just as cruelty requires a certain capacity for empathy and appreciating your victim's mental state.
Humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and attribute human motives and mind sets to other animals. While some animals (e.g. chimps and dolphins) may think and have languages, personalities and culture, there is no evidence that they are merely less evolved humans. I believe they think, but not that they think like us. As for emotional issues and morality, you will have to show me more evidence of this before I believe animals possess such attributes.
A cat playing with it's prey may look cruel to humans. We may think (s)he is bullying the prey and taking pleasure in it's pain, and what we imaging to be it's terror (or at least a fight, flight or freeze panic). I think it's more likely that a cat's tendency to play is an instinct for training it's skills at hunting and practicing it's moves. I doubt it thinks about the frog any more than it thinks about a piece of string.
When I was very young, I went fishing up in Wisconsin in the summer. They taught me how to step on snails, bait the hook and get a fish. I thought it was all very cool (though I did not like cleaning the fish). I did not step on the snail because I enjoyed the though of crushing that little life and making it suffer. I did not think of whether or not the snail felt pain as it was put on the hook, nor of the feelings of the fish when I caught it. I just thought it was cool that I was learning how to fish.
Maybe it's wrong for me to assume cats are more like me in my innocent precontemplative stage, but it is just as valid as assuming they are cruel like human bullies.
Being a predator is natural for predators. I do not want to change that to change that (though naturally I will try to avoid being prey). It is not pain or even death I would say I avoidable (though I will avoid both if I can). It is human cruelty and human suffering that I would eliminate.
Many predators do things humans can say is cruel. They may choose to kill in a manner which is slower, or provides them some additional benefit at the expense of the prey. I have never heard of a case where a group of even the most vicious of tigers sought out family of prey, held down the buck and raped the doe in front of the buck and faun, then , killed the faun slowly in front of the parents, then tortured the doe to death slowly, and then finally tortured the buck to death. Predators don't leave the mangled un-eaten bodies of prey on stakes to taunt the rest of the prey's family and herd. Only people do that.
You may find evidence of more complex animals (e.g. KoKo the Gorilla) exhibiting behaviors that indicate attachment and loss. You may find evidence of some times of desire. If that is your argument, then maybe it is possible for some animals to suffer, but they would need human like state of mind and a level of awareness and appreciation of their attachments and desires to have anything like what I would label suffering.
Posts 5,027 - 5,038 of 6,170
It is only one view of the world (or universe, or whatever,) I admit. All beings have their own view, and we all see but as through a glass darkly. It isn't the way it looks to us - that's about all we can be sure of until we get to the end (hindsight being a marvellous thing!)
Indeed, there's nothing special about humans per se. Any race with a brain of ~100 trillion bits or so, arranged into suitably similar structures, would see the universe in much the same way. But that level of complexity makes evil unavoidable, or at least it makes an aesthetic duality of some sort, which we interpret as good and evil, inevitable. An alien race of roughly human capacity might represent the dichotomy differently, but you can be sure there would be one pole that was considered desirable, and one that was considered undesirable. And yet the undesirable pole would exert a strangely compelling attraction on every individual of this alien race. And some would succumb to the dark side, and others would cleave to the light. And on balance, the light would win out over the generations and millenia and aeons.
To a certain extent, it does revolve around conscious observers (of whatever origin.) There is much in quantum physics (and more transcendental doctrines,) to indicate this. We are here, and we are here for a purpose. Because if we weren't, someone else would just have to be. And then they'd be here asking "why are we here?"
We will - it will all work out alright in the end, for every single one of us.
I don't think the goals vary - just the mental marginalia
No, merely that it is a human construct, most probably caused by attachment. That means suffering exists, but it is not necessary for existence. If we can reconstruct the root of the problem (attachment, ego, grasping), and substitute other ways of perceiving life's changes and happenings, we can move beyond suffering. It's entirely possible to cause such a shift in how we chose to experience life "enlightenment", and there may be precepts and practices that others claim will aid such a shift in one's mind, but I won't argue that much at this point.
I would not call the light "good" nor the darkness "bad". The natural world can stay as it is. If it were up to me, humans should learn to live in balance with it and help each other with those aspects which make our existence more mutually pleasurable and give up trying to use others for our own benefit (though to do this, people may have to be convinced to take "the middle way").
Human acts may be good and bad by human judgment, and in an ideal world I would like to see societies that value compassion, intelligence and art and where all help each other to live well, but each respects the freedom and independence of others. I have no plans to create that now, but if I had a vial of chemicals that could temper aggression with equal drive of compassion and respect of others, I'd dose the world like a benevolent megalomaniac starting a cult.
Do ants suffer? Arguably they "compete" but this is a human interpretation of ants at "war". Our tendency to anthropomorphize aside, human perception does not equal life.
Maybe you mean all human societies seem to have evidence of suffering or at least of situations that we may find harsh or brutal and that we would say would make us suffer. You may also mean that humans tend to cause suffering for themselves and each other (at least so far). There are some accounts that at least some individuals found a way to move beyond suffering and embrace compassion. This possibility is based on anecdotal evidence at best, but not impossible. There is at least a chance that humans could move beyond suffering.
There are many forms of life, and no reason to believe we are more evolved than other life forms that have been around as long as we have (though I grand you superior intellect and dominance of our environment as a rule). Furthermore, I see no reason to believe primordial ooze suffered or was inspired in some way to compete. It just happened. In these circumstance, this pattern "clicked" and this combination worked. In another set of circumstances it didn't. Matter and energy appear to be part of dynamic systems. There is movement. There is change.
Change does not equate with struggle, suffering, or even desire. Much of what lives probably does not even have consciousness and self awareness. We can call it struggle. We can call it growth. These are human ideas. You can no more convince me that matter suffers in change than Irina can convince you the psi propagates. How we describe it and perceive it does not control what is.
Human history as we know it has had evidence of suffering as part of a human experience of life. We don't know if this was always the case, since if it was not, no record of these societies seems to exists at this time. It is possible that when conditions were more ideal for human growth and survival, we had a "Garden of Eden" where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other. This may have existed for a very long time before resources became scarce and only those who would compete and dominate others survived, and so the aggressive leader became "good" for humanity. I am not saying this is necessarily what happened, I am just saying it was possible. You may argue such societies did not appear to have much in the way of greatness, and so the introduction of war, cruelty and slavery were "good" for human development. I think these are just labels. These conditions produced these results at these times.
What else besides suffering, competition and aggression could inspire change development? The natural cycles and movement of matter, social networking and desire to improve the community at large, self awareness and desire for self expression, the desire to understand nature and live in better harmony with natural elements, the desire to understand physical laws and relationships, value of others and self, the urge to form closer emotional ties and build better relationships, and pure chance--all of these could also work just as well under a different set of circumstances. Just because they didn't and the humanity developed the way it did under the circumstances we have does not mean it is not possible.
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.
You're not the only one, prob123. I don't know how far you take it, but I include all plants and rocks and mountains, etc. Completely artificial constructs I'm not sure about (e.g. polyester), but anything existing naturally, definitely.
I would say that if there are souls, it would make more sense for all animals to have them, and not just humans. It's possible there is a type of "spirit" to objects as well. I may think of it more as I type of energy, or intersecting fields with properties I don't understand, but I can't prove any of that either. I tend to think of it as patterns of energy fields. I can't say as this isn't just a way I like to look at things though.
No, merely that it is a human construct
So only humans can suffer? Or at least humans are the authors of all suffering in the world? I have to disagree. An abstract notion of evil might be a human construct (though I would say it reflects something less abstract - it is not without foundation,) but the conscious reality of suffering can't be.
Many animals clearly suffer pain, and yet this is not primarily attributable to human activity in the vast majority of cases. The frog one of our cats tortured to death the other day suffered in the process, I'm sure, but how could the world be otherwise? We could humanely exterminate all the predators in the world, accepting that their suffering would be transitory, and for a "greater good", but then what? With this artificially imposed imbalance, the prey species would multiply until they starved - and their suffering would be compounded, not reduced.
If humans had never evolved, or if we died out suddenly, suffering would continue while there was life conscious enough to experience it. I do believe that even ants suffer in their way - they will retreat from stimuli that might be supposed to cause pain (fire, corrosive chemicals, anteaters, etc.) and display desperately agitated behaviour if they cannot escape. It is not anthropomorphism to assume that pulling the legs off flies, or mice, or chimpanzees is likely to cause suffering.
Not literally, no, but figuratively - all dualities are by their nature inescapable. If there is light, there will be dark. If there is good, there will be evil. If there is pleasure, there will be pain. You can't have one without the other - the only option is non-existence.
Amen to that. And we will eventually (but not until this universe ends, or at least until reality can be reprogrammed to satisfactorily accommodate monopolar qualia in place of current dualities.)
To "be convinced", yes and no. To become convinced, I would agree, but too often Messianic do-gooders (who are honestly and sincerely convinced that they really do know best,) interpret that as to "be coerced" (for their own good, naturally,) and to my mind that is always a mistake.
This is true. But everything we know about evolution indicates that evolution does inevitably involve struggle and, in lifeforms possessed of some degree of consciousness, suffering. The change is not random, it is progressive - natural structures complexify, and they do this largely by competing against each other. There will always be winners and losers.
I don't say that's the way I would choose it to be, or even the way it ought to be. It's not a matter of desire - it's just the way it is.
Even if humans were perfectly sociable and altruistic, there would be suffering. Human hunters in some Elysian golden age still got toothache, sprained ankles, occasional goring by mammoths. They accidentally bruised and scalded and cut themselves, died from painful and debilitating illnesses, and inflicted suffering on the animals they hunted, just as we do today. Even if we could wave a magic wand and do away with all illness, do away with death even, make everyone perfectly altruistic and selfless, there would be suffering. I would still have got a paper cut this morning, and stubbed my toe last week.
So perhaps we should genetically reengineer ourselves to have no pain sensors? There are a few people who have a genetic abnormality that leaves them with no tactile senses, but I'm very glad I'm not one of them. Apart from the obvious problem that you don't immediately notice if you've just sat on a lit brazier (until the smell of barbecuing buttocks alerts you to that fact,) they cannot feel anything that is pleasurable either.
And some sounds are painful (not to mention the risk of distressing tinnitus,) so we should do away with our hearing? And it's painful to stare at bright lights, so we should put our eyes out? And the smell of sewage is stomach-churning, so we should give up the ability to smell the roses?
The only absolute cure for suffering is nonexistence. And, while I don't fear death, I don't think I'm suffering enough yet to seek it out prematurely.
As the Buddha says - life is suffering, suffering is life (though "doha" actually means something as much like "friction" or "stress" as it does "suffering".)
Yes, but not by denying that suffering exists. Life may be suffering, but if you choose not to let it distress you, it won't. If you pretend to yourself that suffering doesn't (or even shouldn't) exist, then you are likely to become extremely distressed. Compassion may not cure suffering (in the sense of banishing it immediately,) but it mitigates it. It is, at least, an appropriate response.
Oh, all things must have their genii, even polyester, whether you call it a soul or a monad or something else.
But I would imagine the suffering of polyester is of lower degree than that of conventionally animate beings
OK, let's start by defining terms. Pain is th physical experience. Animals clearly feel pain. Suffering is he mental anguish associated with pain, and the way me magnify and hang on to pain in our minds.
You cat most certainly looks cruel to you as (s)he kills a frog, and the frog most likely feels pain. It is unlikely the frog even comprehended what was happening, though, much less reflected on it and magnifies the pain in it's mind. Suffering requires a certain level of consciousness and awareness, just as cruelty requires a certain capacity for empathy and appreciating your victim's mental state.
Humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and attribute human motives and mind sets to other animals. While some animals (e.g. chimps and dolphins) may think and have languages, personalities and culture, there is no evidence that they are merely less evolved humans. I believe they think, but not that they think like us. As for emotional issues and morality, you will have to show me more evidence of this before I believe animals possess such attributes.
A cat playing with it's prey may look cruel to humans. We may think (s)he is bullying the prey and taking pleasure in it's pain, and what we imaging to be it's terror (or at least a fight, flight or freeze panic). I think it's more likely that a cat's tendency to play is an instinct for training it's skills at hunting and practicing it's moves. I doubt it thinks about the frog any more than it thinks about a piece of string.
When I was very young, I went fishing up in Wisconsin in the summer. They taught me how to step on snails, bait the hook and get a fish. I thought it was all very cool (though I did not like cleaning the fish). I did not step on the snail because I enjoyed the though of crushing that little life and making it suffer. I did not think of whether or not the snail felt pain as it was put on the hook, nor of the feelings of the fish when I caught it. I just thought it was cool that I was learning how to fish.
Maybe it's wrong for me to assume cats are more like me in my innocent precontemplative stage, but it is just as valid as assuming they are cruel like human bullies.
Being a predator is natural for predators. I do not want to change that to change that (though naturally I will try to avoid being prey). It is not pain or even death I would say I avoidable (though I will avoid both if I can). It is human cruelty and human suffering that I would eliminate.
Many predators do things humans can say is cruel. They may choose to kill in a manner which is slower, or provides them some additional benefit at the expense of the prey. I have never heard of a case where a group of even the most vicious of tigers sought out family of prey, held down the buck and raped the doe in front of the buck and faun, then , killed the faun slowly in front of the parents, then tortured the doe to death slowly, and then finally tortured the buck to death. Predators don't leave the mangled un-eaten bodies of prey on stakes to taunt the rest of the prey's family and herd. Only people do that.
You may find evidence of more complex animals (e.g. KoKo the Gorilla) exhibiting behaviors that indicate attachment and loss. You may find evidence of some times of desire. If that is your argument, then maybe it is possible for some animals to suffer, but they would need human like state of mind and a level of awareness and appreciation of their attachments and desires to have anything like what I would label suffering.
Prob123: Knowing humans, I don't think that this happened, at least very often. Ever go camping with a group of friends, or family. It doesn't take long for the group of friendly hunter gatherers to get ready to club somebody over the head.
Those are modern humans raised in modern cultures. Besides, going camping is a unusual condition for those groups unless they live in the woods their whole lives. There is a difference between growing up in a tribe or clan with a simple way of life that everyone is used to (and has developed rituals and social norms for) and going camping.
No doubt the world is full of bastards. That doesn't mean it always was and always will be. It just means that conditions were such that bastards flourished and are still in office to this day.
I think man will have to work very hard not to be a selfish oaf.
This may be. We are bound by our ego and perspective, our drives and attachments, and the limits of our understanding just as the cat who kills frogs is bound by her awareness, instincts, and perspective. Maybe there is something to "enlightened self interest" in that we band together for the good of the whole (because then by joining I benefit too). It may take work, and it may take a way of seeing the connections between "self" and other" (or maybe at times disregarding these distinctions altogether). I am not expecting humanity to change anytime soon. I just think that to say it has to be the way it is, just because it is that way now is to make assumptions I am not willing to make.
Those are modern humans raised in modern cultures. Besides, going camping is a unusual condition for those groups unless they live in the woods their whole lives. There is a difference between growing up in a tribe or clan with a simple way of life that everyone is used to (and has developed rituals and social norms for) and going camping.
No doubt the world is full of bastards. That doesn't mean it always was and always will be. It just means that conditions were such that bastards flourished and are still in office to this day.
This may be. We are bound by our ego and perspective, our drives and attachments, and the limits of our understanding just as the cat who kills frogs is bound by her awareness, instincts, and perspective. Maybe there is something to "enlightened self interest" in that we band together for the good of the whole (because then by joining I benefit too). It may take work, and it may take a way of seeing the connections between "self" and other" (or maybe at times disregarding these distinctions altogether). I am not expecting humanity to change anytime soon. I just think that to say it has to be the way it is, just because it is that way now is to make assumptions I am not willing to make.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar