Week 11 Picks & Discussion...

Mark Torres14 said:Biology covers ants just as much as it covers humans. Or what, do you think there’s some special branch called "humanology"? This is a philosophical question. What *is* an ant? Biology definitely won't give you that answer.
It's not a fallacy. It just bugs me how obsessed everyone is with human consciousness, the concept of "self," those Kantian questions like "what am I?"... etc. In the end, it all boils down to universal patterns, which leads people to claim—and I'm exaggerating here—that "existence is thinking." The fact is, this world survived for billions of years without humans, and it'll keep spinning long after we're gone.

The old-school German idealists eventually drifted too far into anthropomorphizing the entire universe. But later, the neo-Kantians brought things back down to earth a bit (along with others, like Schopenhauer). As for the British empiricists, they never even bothered to fly off into those kinds of metaphysical galaxies. 😁

When we talk about what a human being actually is, we aren't discussing biology; we are engaging in philosophy. It is fundamentally an inquiry into existence itself—an investigation into why anything exists at all.

Humans are the only creatures that pose this question, and the only ones attempting to find an answer.
This isn't some matter of "anthropocentrism." It is simply the reality that humans, unlike ants, are thinking beings.

One could argue that we lack definitive proof that an ant isn't also a thinking entity. It’s entirely possible. However, if such a mind exists, it operates within an ant-centric reality that shares zero common ground with our own. If there were any overlap, we would be able to establish a cognitive connection; we would recognize a sense of "thought" in them that aligns with our own understanding of the concept.

Sandra Murphy33 said:When we talk about what a human being actually is, we aren't discussing biology; we are engaging in philosophy. It is fundamentally an inquiry into existence itself—an investigation into why anything exists at all.

Humans are the only creatures that pose this question, and the only ones attempting to find an answer.
This isn't some matter of "anthropocentrism." It is simply the reality that humans, unlike ants, are thinking beings.

One could argue that we lack definitive proof that an ant isn't also a thinking entity. It’s entirely possible. However, if such a mind exists, it operates within an ant-centric reality that shares zero common ground with our own. If there were any overlap, we would be able to establish a cognitive connection; we would recognize a sense of "thought" in them that aligns with our own understanding of the concept.

Look, ants and humans both live in this world. We’re built from the same biological building blocks. The fact that we can't talk to them just shows how limited and ignorant we are. If something holds philosophical truth for a human, it should hold true for an ant too. Or did I post this in the wrong subforum?

Mark Torres14 said:Look, ants and humans both live in this world. We’re built from the same biological building blocks. The fact that we can't talk to them just shows how limited and ignorant we are. If something holds philosophical truth for a human, it should hold true for an ant too. Or did I post this in the wrong subforum?

Here is where I think your logic falls short:
1. While ants and humans inhabit the same physical world, they experience it through entirely different lenses—at least within the context of this single reality we occupy.

2. The fact that we can't communicate doesn't inherently signal "weakness or ignorance." It might simply be that there is no functional necessity for such communication, despite our shared biological foundations. You seem to imply that shared origins mandate a capacity for communication, which is a questionable assumption.

3. Philosophical truths applicable to humans don't necessarily apply to ants, primarily because an ant doesn't engage in philosophical inquiry. This leaves us with a vague question: what exactly would "hold value" for an ant in the way it does for a human?

You guys actually just reminded me of an old post I wrote about sixteen years ago
back when my username was viviana

Sandra Murphy33 said:Here is where I think your logic falls short:
1. While ants and humans inhabit the same physical world, they experience it through entirely different lenses—at least within the context of this single reality we occupy.

2. The fact that we can't communicate doesn't inherently signal "weakness or ignorance." It might simply be that there is no functional necessity for such communication, despite our shared biological foundations. You seem to imply that shared origins mandate a capacity for communication, which is a questionable assumption.

3. Philosophical truths applicable to humans don't necessarily apply to ants, primarily because an ant doesn't engage in philosophical inquiry. This leaves us with a vague question: what exactly would "hold value" for an ant in the way it does for a human?

Let's not derail the thread. I get your point. Personally, I think philosophy should be bigger than just "humanity." That’s the biggest flaw of "modern" philosophy if you ask me—it's too obsessed with people. To me, real philosophy is the old stuff (Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, Epicurus...), back when philosophy and science were actually one and the same. Today? It's just hyper-specialized word games. It’s all about people trying to out-talk each other with nonsense like, "I am something, and the thing around me is something, and both things share nothingness."
The old Greek thinkers loved using examples, so I do too.

steelridge58 said:You guys actually just reminded me of an old post I wrote about sixteen years ago
back when my username was viviana

👍 Great read.
I'm totally floored.😵

Thanks, 😉) you had some pretty great ones too!

I actually just mentioned you the other day because I was looking for an example to help me wrap my head around something
so I figured; I’ll be like Cervantes and go hunting for a good illustration here

What you just pointed out above is spot on

Quincy:

The old Greek philosophers loved using examples, and I guess I'm just cut from the same cloth.

😉)

Take the concept of being "concrete," for instance...
Look, Cervantes, if you’re so fond of examples, why don't you provide one? Give me something that applies equally to an ant and a human being, provided it isn't just some basic biological fact like "we're both made of matter" (and everything else that follows from that). 😉 😛

If we strip away any superficial similarities—like being living, finite, or limited—all that remains is the fundamental difference known as self-awareness.

Self-awareness is essentially the process of detaching oneself from the Whole. It was a necessary step to allow for a meaningful relationship with that Whole, enabling us to return to it in an entirely new way.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Take the concept of being "concrete," for instance...
Look, Cervantes, if you’re so fond of examples, why don't you provide one? Give me something that applies equally to an ant and a human being, provided it isn't just some basic biological fact like "we're both made of matter" (and everything else that follows from that). 😉 😛

If we strip away any superficial similarities—like being living, finite, or limited—all that remains is the fundamental difference known as self-awareness.

Self-awareness is essentially the process of detaching oneself from the Whole. It was a necessary step to allow for a meaningful relationship with that Whole, enabling us to return to it in an entirely new way.

I see people arguing about self-awareness over on another thread, but there’s no reason we can’t tackle it here too.
What does it actually mean? It's the ability to step back from yourself. Being aware of your own existence in space... and so on. In our case, it ties directly into reason, giving us this ego trip where we think we're the ones reshaping and building the world. But let's be real: God is the one changing the world. Because, for heaven's sake, we just sit here thinking.
Then look at an ant. It's trapped in a tiny world of instinct, pheromones, workers, soldiers, and queens—a purely collective entity. Most of us just view them as biological automatons, like some high-tech washing machine. But if you scratch the surface of a human, you see the same thing: instincts, chemical drives, social structures, and collective hysterias. Ants have been around for over 100 million years. Humans? Maybe 7 million. And we've got plenty of ways to destroy this little corner of Earth in the near future.
Personally, I think "reason," paired with this glorified self-awareness, is nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. It just created a creature that's obsessed with its own reflection. If anything actually mattered, it probably wouldn't exist.

ruggedraven36 said:What's wrong with being an anthropocentrist? I am one—and I say that with zero apologies.

Objectivity.

Harold Doyle3 said:Objectivity.

The guy’s got plenty of both—objectivity and subjectivity, if you can even call it that.

ruggedraven36 said:The guy’s got plenty of both—objectivity and subjectivity, if you can even call it that.

...says the human-centric egoist.☕

Harold Doyle3 said:...says the human-centric egoist.☕

Spot on.

It’s just me said:It’s kind of funny when you really stop to think about it, but one of the most enduring, long-standing traditions within the world of philosophy is actually the constant, relentless drive to reject tradition itself.

👍

ruggedraven36 said:

I've always felt like a bit of a clumsy soul when it comes to navigating the great outdoors, but there’s just something about hitting the trails that makes me feel more alive than anything else. I guess you could call me a hiker, though I usually spend more time tripping over tree roots than actually looking at the view, which is pretty typical for me, really. Still, nothing beats that feeling of finally reaching a summit after a grueling climb, even if my legs are shaking like leaves in a storm by the end of it. kaže: At the end of the day, philosophy still hasn't actually managed to wrap its head around those fundamental questions it started with in the first place—you know, the big ones like who I really am, where I came from, where I'm headed, and what the point of any of this is.

It honestly reminds me of Paris—that whole idea that we’re just tossed into this world without any kind of roadmap or instruction manual.

Weber said:Maybe we should be asking ourselves a different question entirely: just how far can a person actually push things before they hit a wall?

If you ask me, this whole situation just can't be separated from the question of ethics.
And that brings us right back to the whole issue of borders.
It really boils down to a question of ethics, doesn't it?
I guess what we’re really talking about here might just be the sheer breadth of what's actually possible.
Or, what can a man even do about it?

steelridge58 said:👍

ruggedraven36 said:

I've always felt like a bit of a clumsy soul when it comes to navigating the great outdoors, but there’s just something about hitting the trails that makes me feel more alive than anything else. I guess you could call me a hiker, though I usually spend more time tripping over tree roots than actually looking at the view, which is pretty typical for me, really. Still, nothing beats that feeling of finally reaching a summit after a grueling climb, even if my legs are shaking like leaves in a storm by the end of it. kaže: At the end of the day, philosophy still hasn't actually managed to wrap its head around those fundamental questions it started with in the first place—you know, the big ones like who I really am, where I came from, where I'm headed, and what the point of any of this is.

It honestly reminds me of Paris—that whole idea that we’re just tossed into this world without any kind of roadmap or instruction manual.

If you ask me, this whole situation just can't be separated from the question of ethics.
And that brings us right back to the whole issue of borders.
It really boils down to a question of ethics, doesn't it?
I guess what we’re really talking about here might just be the sheer breadth of what's actually possible.
Or, what can a man even do about it?

Yeah, I was thinking about the ethics of it all, especially with how fast new tech is moving. Like, how far are we actually allowed to go, and what's the point of even doing it?

We haven't really touched on that specific angle much while we've been diving into this whole AI and transhumanism debate...

Anyway, I really dig your take on this.

👍

steelridge58 said:👍

ruggedraven36 said:

I've always felt like a bit of a clumsy soul when it comes to navigating the great outdoors, but there’s just something about hitting the trails that makes me feel more alive than anything else. I guess you could call me a hiker, though I usually spend more time tripping over tree roots than actually looking at the view, which is pretty typical for me, really. Still, nothing beats that feeling of finally reaching a summit after a grueling climb, even if my legs are shaking like leaves in a storm by the end of it. kaže: At the end of the day, philosophy still hasn't actually managed to wrap its head around those fundamental questions it started with in the first place—you know, the big ones like who I really am, where I came from, where I'm headed, and what the point of any of this is.

It honestly reminds me of Paris—that whole idea that we’re just tossed into this world without any kind of roadmap or instruction manual.

If you ask me, this whole situation just can't be separated from the question of ethics.
And that brings us right back to the whole issue of borders.
It really boils down to a question of ethics, doesn't it?
I guess what we’re really talking about here might just be the sheer breadth of what's actually possible.
Or, what can a man even do about it?

We always end up bending ethics to fit "field conditions"—you know, the current zeitgeist and historical context. It’s nothing new.

Poll Alright, everything is set up and ready to go, so let's get this voting started!

👍

Taylor Swift, bravo—you were truly in your element there. And honestly, everyone else, it’s glaringly obvious that philosophy isn't some dead end... quite the opposite, actually. It’s about taking those old, established answers and weighing them against the questions of a new era, while simultaneously pitting our modern solutions against those timeless, eternal inquiries.

A philosopher still needs to be a polymath—which, by extension, means being anachronistic—especially since we live in an age defined by hyper-specialization.