The line between "alive" and "not alive" is not as sharply drawn as you might think. When we talk about viri, for example, it seems quite proper to think of them as being somewhere on the border between very complex chemical systems and very simple living things. (In fact, living things are very complex chemical systems.) I see no reason not to compare, when appropriate, the non-conscious responses of living things to the responses of non-living things.



The best link you could find comes from Nineteen Twenty-Six? I suspect our understanding of plant physiology has advanced a bit since then. In any case, this antique article uses the term "nervous system" in an extraordinarily loose and inaccurate manner. Bad science, even for the Jazz Age.



Nonsense. Plants do not suffer. It astonishes me that I have to keep pointing this out. Let me try to make it as clear as possible.

Plants cannot experience emotions, because the ability to experience emotions (or anything else, for that matter) requires consciousness. If you deny this, I don't know what else I can say; we are not living in the same universe.

Suffering is an emotion. It is to be distinguished from the cause of the suffering. For example, if I chop down a tree, this clearly causes the tree's physiology to be damaged. However, the tree does not experience the damage (even though it may respond to it), and therefore does not suffer, because it has no consciousness and therefore cannot experience anything.

One cannot be evil to a tree, because it cannot suffer. (There may be reasons why chopping down a tree may cause harm to beings which can experience suffering, but this is another matter.)

Plants do not suffer at all. Animals experience a range of suffering ranging from little or none to profound, depending on the complexity of their nervous systems. It seems clear to me that humans can suffer slightly more than other primates (if for no other reason than their greater imaginations.) It also seems clear to me that primates (and possibly cetaceans) can suffer to a greater extent than other mammals; that mammals can suffer to a greater extent than other vertebrates; that vertebrates can suffer to a greater extent than invertebrates; and so on. (I am sure that it is possible to find exceptions to this scheme. Octopi seem to have a much greater degree of sentience than one might expect from invertebrates, for example. I will not quibble over the exact details, as long as we agree on the basic point that differences in the ability to experience suffering exist.)

Some animals (including humans) can experience fear and sorrow. Plants cannot. Do you deny this?

It has been said that fashion is a thing so ugly that it need must be changed every six months; and so those who would be fashionable must be constantly making themselves over - and not for the better. It is a fickle business, for today’s celebrity is tomorrow’s has-been. Indeed, the wise feel uneasy in the cloak of popular appeal, for the common taste never rises above the vulgar. Only virtue is lasting, for while it is not always popular, it is never out of style.

Victoria i am completely stunned by what you just say, you can not be serious?


Are you saying PLANTS are not ALIVE? Are you saying that only things "with brains" are alive? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

When you pick an apple from a Tree, you KILL the apple. When you cut of the grass from its root, it DIES. You are not seriously saying its not alive? That would be ridiculous, that would mean you would deny entire facts of evolution, botany, the world. Amino Acids are not alive, worms are not alive, apples are not alive.


I know you where joking, or possible misinformed by someone, this is not serious, is it?

-JE

Once again I have managed to make myself completely misunderstood.

I'll put it as simply as I can.

Plants are living things without consciousness.

Animals (at least those with a reasonably complex nervous system) are living things with consciousness.

This seems utterly obvious to me.

"Alive" is not the same as "capable of suffering."

Being alive is necessary, but not sufficient, for having the capability to experience suffering.

Only that which can experience suffering is capable of being the object of ethical consideration.

Victoria, so how do you define suffering then? As in my dictionary, one of them are: "Feelings of mental or physical pain". And obviously, You dont know if a plant, lets say a apple (which is a fruit i know), are not feeling pain.


I assume you will not excuse the fact that we lack enough technology to detail the feelings, or, if you prefer, "system" of plants, fruits etcetera. So i guess you have just decided that they can not "feel" because they are not human, and can not feel human emotion.

I guess monkeys are not alive either, not being able to build a computer by the same logic. Heck, what about black people? Do they have emotion, being black and all and closest to our "monkey" ancestors? Or how far do you want to push this nonsense?

I see it differently. Pain is something all living (generally higher-order organisms) experience. Suffering isn't. Suffering can happen with or without pain. If a person transcends pain, they are no longer suffering, though they might still be experiencing pain.



I don't know. Maybe. That's the problem with debating abstract concepts like love, honor, respect, virtue, and vice. We all have our own interpretation of those words. For rough instance, IMO, if you love someone and they are suffering and going to die, you help them die. To me that's a virtue, but others might consider it a great vice.

There have been many that have gotten ahead by doing bad deeds. Still, it is a perverse satisfaction knowing one has profited from wrongdoing, for to succeed through injustice is not to gain but lose self-respect. Bad deeds are like ghosts that come to haunt one’s troubled conscience, and can only be exorcized by righting the wrongs they committed.

And do you consider these "deeds" to be done in a subjective view (subjective per person, no truth to it), or Universal Truth™ (maybe following the "word" of a god or such)?

A man of virtue is not known for his preaching, but for his good works. The best man’s words are soon forgotten, but his good works live on long after he is gone. What better legacy to leave posterity than something that was not just done well but done for the good of others.

You seem not to answer questions, i ponder if i even should ask you, or point out, that what you just claimed is a SUBJECTIVE point. What is "good" could be "bad" for someone else. Where does it come from?

Universal OR Subjective, please tell me so i know.

-JE

I would think that it depends on what you mean by “SUBJECTIVE”. Ruskin thought that the terms “objective” and “subjective” were, metaphysically speaking, meaningless. See John Ruskin, “Of the Pathetic Fallacy,” Modern Painters, volume iii, pt. 4, sections 1-3 (1856). Similarly, Schopenhauer’s writings, e.g., Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (1819), appear to apply meanings to the terms that are the reverse of their common usage, which, for purposes of discussion, would render them meaningless (i.e., should it be The World as Will and Representation, or The World as Subjectively and Objectively Apprehended?). Perhaps the terms are interchangeable depending upon one’s view. As a matter of perspective, the objective and subjective appear to merge at the vanishing point, and any difference between the them disappears.

I use the word in its original meaning, simplified:
Subjective* Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
Objective* Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena (reality)


Two extreme examples:
Example I Subjective (fantasy/makeup/imagination): My god is real because i say so, and the world is the proof for it.
Example II Objective (fact/realworld): No evidence have ever been shown for any god or gods, magical or mythical creatures.

Using these very clear definition, Is "good" subjective or objective? Please explain your answer in detail for further discussion.

No, you used the word “UNIVERSAL”. The term “universal”, metaphysically, applies to the concept of truth. To continue with Ruskin, his critique of modern painters looked at art in the focus of truth: “Of Truth of Space,” “Of Truth of Water,” “Of Truth of Skies.” John Ruskin, Modern Painters, I (1843). One’s impression of such analysis is that it would be “subjective,” i.e., that art is subjective; that beauty, as the saying goes, is in the eye of the beholder. But is truth subjective? - Can a great piece of music, for example, be measured scientifically (viz.“objectively”) by the number of its notes? (Is Mozart greater than Beethoven by sheer volume?) I think not. A great work of art - its distinguishing characteristic, so to speak - is that it reflects the truth. This is not objective or subjective, for, in truth, they are the same. Both the artist and the scientist - in their passion and precision - seek the same thing: the truth.

It seems you make a point of not answering questions.

To your words, no, you are wrong. An artist work is subjective, as its neither "bad" or "good", it is for the viewer to decide. Science, is the strive for knowledge. Evolution is a fact as an example, its not "subjective opinion", it is something that is happening, and is explaining our past and future history. No subjectivity here.

But its clear you dont want to actually debate this, nor go into it any deeper as you do not give any responses. Which is thus sad, as i liked this topic, but i shall not disturb your self-regard anymore, and let you enjoy your view in the mirror.


-JE

“There is no ‘redness’ in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation.”
- Alfred Korzybski, “The Nature of Language in the Perceptual Processes,” reprinted from Perception: An Approach to Personality (1951).
______________________________________

The very thesis of this thread (viz., everything is either good or bad depending on who you ask) is that you cannot frame the discussion in such terms. Your responses only illustrate the problem. You cannot frame the discussion in terms of “objective” or “subjective”, because what you are really saying is that everything is only as you perceive it to be; which render such terms meaningless. The real question is: Are your perceptions true - or false? Do you see “red”? If you think that you see “red,” then, as Korzybski points out, your perception is false.

Perhaps you should go back to discussing plants; which, by the bye, Korzybski categorizes as “energy-binders” that have sensitivity to light, air, chemical interaction, etc., and can transform energy.

JamesEarl, do you seriously think that apples experience pain and suffering? And you say Victoria's talking nonsense...

You can't have feelings without some kind of nervous system. Nervous systems are made of cells that are specially adapted for processing information. Plants don't have that stuff. Animals do.

Yes. But animals do not have the ablility to express the pain that they feel.

We are sentient. Only the humans, not the monkeys or the sheep, or the cows. We cannot experience what they experience, cannot empathize with them, because they are dumb. They do not speak, they are barely aware of themselves. Pain, yes, they feel it. But does it carry the same significance to them as it does to us? How can we possibly tell if a creature incapable of thought, is capable of experiencing anguish?

Empathy is a dangerous thing to have, because it is absolutely impossible to see things from an "animal's point of view". Even between humans, trying to understand another's position is a veritable minefield of 'interpretation\counterinterpretation'. The only senses, and thoughts that we can trust are our own.

When being cruel to a base animal, we do not "feel their pain". What we feel is guilt. And misplaced guilt, at that. Beasts without the quality of sentience, without the capacity for higher thought, lack too, the capacity to to truly feel, and comprehend their own pain.

Every rational person desires pleasure and seeks to avoid pain. It is a natural tendency that applies to both physical as well as mental sensory perception. It is a relative emotional state for we cannot experience the one without the other - that is, we perceive pleasure only to that degree that it predominates over painful sensation, but not in its total absence. Indeed, as with too much of anything, a surfeit of pleasure is anything but pleasurable.

But animals are not rational, nor are they, by any definition, people. Their pleasures are simple; to eat, breed, and sleep, and thus, their pains are equally simple.

Oh, and it is my personla belief, that for humans, there can be no such thing as too much pleasure.

Animals are certainly capable of cognitive process to the extent of their development of language forms to interact with their environment that goes beyond instinctive behavior. It would certainly be a great mistake to think of animals as “dumb” with respect to cognitive ability. We know now that animal species can communicate through body language and vocal sound, as with the howling of wolves and the songs of migrating whales; although theirs is a language beyond our limited knowledge of them. (Wolf pack and whale pod hunting is a highly organized activity that could not be conducted without visual and vocal communication ability.) Indeed, there is even communication between species as with man and dog. One might argue that dogs exhibit nothing more than trained behavior, but then again animals may not be so "dumb" as we think; for when you see your dog sitting by the door with his leash in his mouth, you would have to be pretty stupid not to get the message.

You misconstrue. I mean dumb, as in mute, lacking the capacity to raise their voices against us, their masters.

And we are their masters. They live, and die for our pleasure, do they not?

Nemo, your empathy for baser creatures is admirable. But would you be so kindly disposed, if your dear dog was no domestic housepet, but a feral wolf? Would environmentalists feel so strongly about the burmese tiger, if it was not locked up safely in a cage?

Empathy comes after mastery. We can only pity the creatures that we have already broken.

No, they have no problem raising their voices against us; rather it is we who have a problem listening to them.

Victoria- pain is not always a disease issue- the term "no pain no gain" is actually been proven by biologists- you can't get more muscle without damage to those very tissues- we are not sure if you grow more muscle cells, or simiply repair the same muscle cell with more fibres- but the result is- with pain, comes the "good" effect of muscle growth- so one can say this "suffering" is "good".

Nemo- there is enormous debate in Russia right now if Stalin was "good" or "bad".

From our outsiders view, with little feel for the history of Russia- most would immediately consider Stalin "bad"- but, put in the context of thier history- Stalin acted no differently than Ivan the Terrible, a couple of the Czar Nicholi (plural Nicks? ), Peter the great built St Petersburg "on the bones of slaves" and Catherine the great was, um, not always so nice either- mass murder is the usual way they do power over there, so many Russian's discount that part of the equation entirely- and go with "Stalin modernized Russia into the industrial age"

Basically saying- Stalin was "good" for Russia.

So, are you trying to tell me, that if humans were simply to listen, they could hold prolonged conversations with their pets? That, with one's trusty canine companion, it is possible to wax eloquent about life, and its meaning, and the metaphysical connotations of it all? Would one's dog respond?

Show me a dog who can debate. Show me a dog who can assert mastery over all the other species in his environment. Animals are not our equals Nemo. Surely you must see that.

What is natural though in all reality? I mean homosexual activity can occur naturally in nature but its called unnatural. what is natural about toothpaste, or assault rifles or governments. I like to attack ideas at the root, for simply put if you kill that how can anything above it exist, much like the autotrophs place in the "natural" world.

Speaking of life that is another fine example. I could easily say all the variables on the earth could easily number in the millions or billions, it would depend on definition. So if you had that many sided of a die rolled for one day, compared to say a million days, what would exist naturally? Of course there is ignorance to this such as what is the role of thermal energy in all of it but that sort of leads into my next point. Humans collectively are truly blind as to what it means to be human. From the smallest or most discrete units of biological function up to a whole organism and population level. Basically put the number of biological processes in a human for instance is a rather large number, this pertains to that organ called a brain which is currently still shrouded with mysticism. Not that mysticism is wrong, its just a philosophy about reality, but its not something that can be tested. So where this leads me to is the fact that no precise or all covering in scope definition to what is natural exists, so what does that word really mean. Basically a million questions with real answers are still waiting to be unlocked, in the meantime you have to deal with for the lack of better words moral absolutists enforcing what is right on everyone. Now does it work or not, well basically the only "natural" answer to that I could see is the persistence of the specie really in context of the natural world which does indeed exist. Its hardly a standard taking everything into account, but it works. If you can make it you go extinct, this would include everything in a species, such as a morality.

So my hopes are people will view the world or in particular humanity, see variation, maybe put 2 and 2 together and get on the team for the big win against global climate change.

As you say, human experience is diverse, and includes many things that can't be unambiguously classified as good or bad, natural or unnatural. There are a few things that are universals: don't intentionally hurt people who are on your side, and don't cheat people who are on your side. In all cultures, people notice when these rules are violated, talk about the violators, get angry, and want to punish them.

The sexual taboos are part of a different moral subsystem that's concerned with purity rather than reciprocity. There's a lot more cultural variety in sexual taboos, and it's harder to define anything universal about them. Current speculation is that this purity-seeking system was evolved to avoid disease by treating some food and some people as unclean. For a quick sketch of the various moral systems that psychologists are currently investigating, see this New York Times story that I posted in another debate a while back.

When I lived in Europe, I had a German shepherd dog that was highly intelligent. He had a large vocabulary, and had no trouble understanding what I said to him, and following my orders, which he faithfully carried out with the same diligence of an officer of the Prussian army. When we had guests at home, I used to amuse them by asking them to refer to various objects about the house, and he would go and point them out; or bring them on command if they were portable. I was once doing some washing in the laundry room downstairs from our apartment, and I told Otto to take the plastic clothes basket into the house (he even knew out how to open doors); and I watched as he struggled to carry the bulky basket which kept getting stuck up on the stairs. After several attempts, he sat down looking at the steps; and then turned around and backed his way up the stairs dragging the basket in his mouth. When I saw that maneuver, I realized that between those ears was a brain beyond just being trained, but capable of problem solving. This was just one of many incidents that he displayed such intellectual ability.

I think that we grossly underestimate animals. We think ourselves superior - would we but have their good sense.

No Nemo, you grossly underestimate other (we are animals to) animals. I already knew this, its generally some sort of theistic belief thats the basis that we are "superior" to other animals. Its all subjective, as the word goes.


I find it odd that you before this incident seemed to consider yourself "superior", as well as the majority of people consider themselves "superior". I guess im just logical and more intelligent, or maybe its a conspiracy?



Did you think that when we evolved from our earlier stage (lets call it monkey-like humans), did you expect other animals to CHANGE and become LESS of what they are? They evolve as we speak. They change constantly, as we do. Why would we be superior because we can bad-mouth them? Can you communicate with a plant? Snail? Are they inferior because YOU LACK THE ABILITY to understand them?

You know as well as I do, thats just playing silly buggers.

-JE

You seem pretty invested in this idea that plants and snails have some sort of consciousness. It's obvious to me that we can't communicate with plants and snails because they don't have anything to say. Does that make them inferior? Only as conversational partners. Plants are infinitely better at photosynthesizing than I am, and snails are better at, well, being snails, I suppose.

I don't know what any of them have to do with virtues or vices -- though I could be convinced that dogs have some sense of right and wrong. They're smart, social animals, and that's almost certainly prerequisite for developing a moral sense.

Right but what I am getting at which is I think in line with your current notion of thinking is that such moral practices such as the golden rule are natural. To me I take this two current ways, either that you mean its genetic for example, and the other is you are saying its natural as in how well it works. To me I don’t understand past a mere survival value how you can rate how well a culture is doing really. Considering the past it would seem war acts almost as a constant and nations on a whole are far from being saints. So in relation to say an item like the cultural primitive did our culture and all others simply come from a blank state? Its easy to see that people have lived naturally under the "rule" of various moral and philosophical definitions and continue to do so. So as a rule I don’t think one can really make empirically such a call as to say a moral value is naturally universal for all time with human beings. I think more or less any evidence for such truly is simply conjecture.

I don’t want to sound rude, but all people barring damage for example use language. Also I don’t know how much morality you can have when occupying a geothermal vent at that ocean floor. The simple act that appeals to me is I do not understand how people can deny they have a nature, and if some cases go as far as to accept such a notion that they would rather live with lack of understanding of such. To me I cant see how such behavior could ever persist giving the environment. No other specie has such an ability really to make ones self extinct with so many others. This issue should be one of such huge concern giving the reality of even a basic education in the natural world. Can you count on nuclear weapons never be used to any scale, to issues such earth killings comets!

We can go back and forth ad nauseum regarding plants, viruses, animals and who's capable of suffering. It is ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand. I believe that just because one doesn't understand the nature in which a lifeform can suffer, doesn't mean that it is incapable of suffering. You believe that only animals (and only a particular types of animals, at that) are capable of suffering. We'll just have to leave it at that.

More relevantly, suffering is not an emotion, it is the process of experiencing. It is to undergo something painful or distressing. The resulting emotion is also suffered. But suffering is not in and of itself an emotion. The verb 'to suffer' means to undergo, to endure. 'Suffering' as a verbal noun can mean a painful condition or pain suffered... but that doesn't make suffering an emotion... it is the experience of a particular emotion or sensation.

Suffering is also not a vice. Creating suffering may be a vice, but the experience known as suffering is not a vice in and of itself.

On a side note, in terms of cruelty, I do not find it cruel to eat an animal that is not self-aware. It has no awareness of, and therefore, no appreciation of it's own life - for all it knows, I am supposed to eat it. Now, does this mean I think we should be able to kill animals in inhumane ways? No. Just because an animal isn't self-aware, doesn't mean it is incapable of suffering.

Humans do have a nature, and it does include a moral sense. The details differ, but there are some universals, including: you don't intentionally hurt people who are on your side, and you don't cheat people who are on your side. Of course, people are selfish and imperfect, so these rules are broken in practice. But all humans, in all cultures, feel viscerally that these infractions are wrong.

If that's all our moral sense told us, it probably wouldn't be unique to humans. But we have the ability to think in the abstract, and generalize these rules. A wolf may have a notion of what things should not be done to its pack-mates, but it would not be able to generalize that feeling toward all of wolf-kind. And even if it did, it wouldn't be able to convince any other wolves about it, because wolves don't have a language capable of communicating abstract thought.

We humans can make that leap. We can reason that a shared morality makes life better for everyone in the group, and that there are no essential differences between human groups. Therefore, we should include all humans inside the ethical circle.

Of course (again), in practice, we're not so good at that. The Stanford prison experiment showed how easy it is to get even well-adjusted college students to treat their peers as the "other," whose suffering doesn't warrant sympathy, but rather laughter and derision. That's the tragic nature of man. We understand how things could be better, but we continue to fall short.

I had a more optimistic take on some of these themes a year or so back...

How can u include "moral sense" as a "natural fact"? "Moral" is as you well know, completely subjective, there is absolutely no truth to it, and thats just plain fact, nothing really debatable.


The reason societies have "you shall not kill" is because without this law, you can not have a society (stable one atleast) and hence, we follow thus. Thats why all religions include this, as religion was used when we were ignorant bout the world, but still needed a reason for us to behave, and keep a society. Humans are dependent on eachother as you well know.



A perfect example of this can be shown during wartime. If you look at the war in Iraq, and the majority of pro-war Conservatives, you will see that 90+% will claim that pro-choice is somethind "bad" (abortion), whiles killing muslims is clearly something OK (as they agree to a war against them). Are they wrong? As clearly, there "moral" tells them its "bad" to kill none-existing "babies", but killing muslims (another religion) is something "ok".

You understand how it works? If you claim a Moral codex to humans, you will need to supply evidence for such, do you have any evidence for this, as moral is subjective, i would, and most likely other members, want to know were this view comes from in that case.


Please supply us with evidence for the 'moral sense' you claimed humans have naturally, how it works, and also scientific backing for such.

I will, and I think it's interesting. But first, can you anser: "do you seriously think that apples experience pain and suffering?"

I'll accept that definition. Please note that the important word here is feelings.

As a side note to those who are quibbling over the word "suffer," let me make it clear that I use the word only to mean the experience which is felt by those who suffer. Using this definition, it is clear to me that some minimum level of consciousness is required in order to suffer.



I'm sorry, but I do know that plants cannot feel pain, because the evidence is quite clear that they have no consciousness at all and therefore cannot experience anything.

If you claim I don't "know" this, then all I can do is say that I don't know if I'm just living in an entirely illusory universe, and nothing really exists at all. That hypothesis is exactly as probable as the hypothesis that plants have consciousness, even though they clearly lack any kind of nervous system.



But we do have the technology to know a lot of things about plant physiology in great detail. There is no indication that plants have anything even remotely resembling a nervous system.

And let me make it clear that I am the last person on earth to claim that only human beings can feel emotions. It is absolutely clear to me, from both scientific evidence and common experience, that animals of many kinds experience emotions.



I don't know where you might get this idea from me. As I said before, plants are definitely alive. They are not conscious. If anything, I'm probably a stronger advocate for "animal rights" than the average person, so it bothers me that I am being accused of anthrocentrism.



***sigh***

The grotesque notion that any so-called "race" of human beings is somehow "more advanced" than another is a foolish notion accepted only by those without the tiniest understanding of biological evolution. I'm astonished that you even brought this up.

I will hold you to that, and expect an answer on your next post.




It depends (obviously) on how you define "pain and suffering". When you pick a apple from a tree, it dies, this is a fact. As a fellow member stated:



A living thing that dies, would obviously "experience" this, however you want to define it, and I assume you do not use "human suffering" as the pillar of definition in this case, right? As this would discard all other animals as well.






Victoria, And this is the peak of your entire argument, what do you base this on?

Are you aware of Plant Perception? (this is just a simple example, no claim) Playing certain kind of music for plants to get a certain kind of reaction as example?



You are making a bold statement when you claim that plants have no "feelings", do you not? And i see no 'grotesque notion' of the fact that i qeuate it with racism as it is equal in this debate. The topic is Virtues and Vices remember? We need to define this, and you clearly made a stand that you are above plants in the way that your feelings are 'above' theirs.

No, its even worse, you claim they have no feelings. And like i said, you do know what they said about does slaves 200 years ago, right? Seeing what im getting at here?


-JE

Does your finger experience pain and suffering once it has been removed from your hand?



If feelings means sensation, then even beings without consciousness can suffer.



I love it when people invent new meanings for words and tell the rest of us we are quibbling.

To suffer is to undergo or experience something. You are saying that you use the word 'suffer' to mean the experience which is felt by those who undergo or experience something. That makes no sense.

Here is the OED definition of the verb to suffer, please indicate which definition you would like us to use in discussing this with you:



It seems to me that you are limiting your definition, conveniently, to a human or anthropomorphized suffering. The only time a being can be capable of suffering is if it suffers as we do?

Perhaps this concept, which seems so simple to me, is genuinely impossible to convey. I'll try again.

From the (wonderful and delightful) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language which you have so kindly quoted for us, let's look for the meaning of "suffering" that is most commonly used in ordinary, everyday conversation, OK?

From the long list of possible definitions you have supplied (most of which can be discarded as "obsolete" or "rare"), I submit to you that, in plain speech, this is the one that most people would say is the definition of "suffer."



(Bold added for emphasis)

Obviously, in some unusual or archaic phrases, the word "suffer" is not used in this way. "Suffer the little children to come unto me" is probably the most common example, where "suffer" simply means "allow." It is also possible to use the word "suffer" as a metaphor, as in "This old book has suffered a lot of damage." This doesn't mean that the book experienced pain, distress, or grief.

It seems to me quite clear that "pain, distress, or grief" cannot exist in something which has zero consciousness.

Thus this statement cannot be true:



This contention baffles me. "Consciousness" means "able to feel" and "able to have sensations." "Suffering," as I have defined it (and as I contend the average person would define it) is a feeling; it is a sensation.

Beings without consciousness cannot suffer because they cannot feel or sense anything.



Not at all. I am well aware that human suffering is quite different from the suffering of other animals. And I am certainly not, in any way, suggesting that the suffering of other animals is of no importance, simply because it is not identical to our own.

It really baffles me how I am being perceived as if I were a cold-hearted vivisectionist who believes that animals are to be regarded as inanimate property. This is the exact opposite of what I have been saying.

Beings that can suffer -- that can experience pain, distress, or grief -- are worthy of ethical consideration.


Is that clear enough?

As far as "plant perception" goes (and I must emphasize that we are talking about perception and not just reaction to stimuli) I find that I must file this firmly under "Pseudo-science."

Link

“I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
- Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729)
_________________________________

Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins; but to speak to a glutton one would think it a cardinal virtue. It is most common among the rich, who can afford to indulge their taste for exotic dishes and rare wines; but, even so, wealth cannot add luster to what is but common vice. Vice and virtue aside, all excess is bad. Too much eating and drinking dulls appetite, not to mention enjoyment. Better to forego dessert than suffer indigestion; and likewise that last drink and spare yourself a headache.

Anybody who can quote Swift and take their user name from Verne is OK in my book.



You write very beautifully. (Are you a professional poet by chance?) You also make some very good points. Let me add a few thoughts.

I would say that it is not the indulgence in gluttony itself which is the problem, really, but the effects of it. In the real world, this may indeed be six of one and half a dozen of the other; we know that, in general, indulgence beyond a reasonable point leads to bad consequences for oneself and for others. However, when the indulgence is carried out carefully, to a reasonable degree, it is not a vice. Nor would I say that restraining oneself from a reasonable amount of indulgence is a virtue.

Admittedly, I am at heart a hedonist. This is why I admire the ethical system often followed by the neo-Pagan faiths. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." The first four words are neither more nor less important than the last four.

Here is a poem for you by a famous bard:

He's a fool who give over the liquor,
It softens the skinflint at once,
It urges the slow coach on quicker,
Gives spirit and brains to the dunce.
The man who is dumb as a rule
Discovers a great deal to say,
While he who is bashful since Yule
Will talk in an amorous way.
It's drink that uplifts the poltroon
To give battle in France and in Spain,
Now here is an end of my turn-
And fill me that bumper again!
- Turlough Carolan (1670-1738)
______________________________

I would agree with your remarks about indulgence and restraint. For example, Mark Twain once said that a man could never have enough bourbon; but he was drunk at the time. Contrariwise, many hold temperance to be a virtue. If by temperance one means self-restraint, then it indeed has virtue, for control over one’s appetites would tend to the "Golden Mean," and avoidance of excess. If temperance means total abstinence, then its virtue is more problematic, for many extol the "nectar of the gods." Even so, few mortals can give good account of its use, and are the more sorry for the effect of it.

Yes, the 'suffer' also means to tolerate or allow. The OED also mentions usage in that way. I didn't include it because that usage was irrelevant to this debate.

Your second example is actually not metaphorical. In that sense, a book can "sustain injury, damage, or loss." "This old book has sustained a lot of damage." That is hardly metaphorical.



Suffering as you've defined it is an action and, therefore can not be a feeling or a sensation. In addition, you have chosen a transitive usage for your definition but the usage you use in your argument is intransitive.

Let me say, that this doesn't jive with what you've been saying, so I have a feeling that the definition you've chosen doesn't match your argument.



Do plants sense light? Do they respond to light?

Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice lis est.
- Horace, Ars Poetica, 78
“Critics yet contend and their vain disputings find no end.”
______________________________________________

A great pianist was once asked if he thought his concert performance was good. After reflecting for a moment, the maestro answered: “Only the critics would know”; and, with a wry smile, he added - “they said last night I played brilliantly.”

The pianist was pulling a leg. Accomplished musicians can tell a good performance from a bad one while playing. This does become relative to one's placement, one's experience level and one's level of mastery.

The critics can't really tell when a musician has skipped a day of practice. The musician can. It's too subtle for the critics to pick up because all they do is listen, which is a passive thing. After a few days of skipped practice, then the critics might pick it up, the good ones probably. The hacks won't get it even if a month goes by without practice. It's just name recognition to them.

Anyway, pretty funny pianist there

It might have been Bernstein who said he could tell with one day off, and the audience after a week. I'm pretty sure he didn't care what the critics had to say, which is a good way to be. Totally subjective; completely good.

Do plants sense light?

No.

Do they respond to light?

Yes.

Does this make my position any clearer?

My thoughts on virtue and vices are simple ones and very basic.

Sow a thought and you reap or harvest an action. Sow and act and you harvest a habit. Sow a habit over time and you reap or build "character"...either good or bad. Sow character over the period of ones life and you harvest a "DESTINY". {CHARLES READER}

This thought is not original, the Christ made exactly this point, who you are starts with the way you think(Mark7:14-23).

This is why the medium of modern technical communication, i.e.....tv, radio, the internet, in the format of advertising works so well. They hire people that understand that to mold "behavior", you first must influence the way people think.

This is why it is important to focus on proper thoughts and ever so "important" to monitor just what type of education and medium our children are being exposed to. Radical behavior is not a product of our society, but a product of our "carelessness", as we evermore give over our rights to "rear" our offspring to the "village". RD

See Page 2, Post #25, supra.

Christ - if he walked this earth - was an unworldly philosopher.

GIVE US BARABBAS!

Actually, what is original thinking? Is there anything new under the sun? Shoot, the sun isn't all that new either, so we now know. Many suns had to explode to make the matter that we are now using. Whatever is thought has been thought before, so we should just accept this condition and realize that things only seem original because in our limited experience we have not yet come across this thing that seems original.

But it's still an illusion, originality. Everything, whether it is a thought or a reconfiguration of matter and energy, has been done before. We just don't know it.

So it's all relative to experience. Have you ever been experienced? Well I have (Hendrix, he died young too).

Think that's why I'm so attracted to traditions these days, and not just what one might think is tradition in this place and time. For me it's good, not sure just why. Could be the counting down of decades, could be another level of consciousness, could be just the combination of place, time and experience.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know squat. I'm knowing lesser squat each and every moment. Oh there are the routines that are familiar, sure. Get up make coffee check out stuff make money spend money check out stuff eat sleep repeat. That is somewhat less than squat.

I know how to find things out, which goes along with the lesser than squat knowledge. And I can do skilled things like string words together into things that seem like thoughts but really aren't anything but symbols for those thoughts, highly dependent on language and experience, and there it is again. What might seem fresh and original really isn't.

Music is more universal and closer to the actual thought. Music involves vibrations in a medium, air. Thoughts involve vibrations in a medium too, but it isn't air. We don't know what it is or how it works, and it doesn't matter.

Which is pretty funny.

You know, that we think we know something. We don't.

For example, we don't know if zero exists. We just guess it might. I can't go down to Ben Franklin and buy a box of zeros. I can only buy a box of symbols that stand for zero. Same goes for a point, a line, a plane, and where is the wisdom section? I could use a peck of wisdom.

The funny thing about all this is that we think it matters. We build big structures, big vehicles, big cities, big countries and think this world is really big, somewhat like an insect thinking that a tree is really big. Except that's a bad analogy because insects don't seem to care about size. We do.

And that is hillarious.

Stonehenge is a riot! The pyramids kill! The hydrogen bomb . . . eh, not so funny. You know, if it actually exists. Trouble is to find out will probably kill you, either by action of the Super Secret Schweps or the explosion itself. I know this much: It isn't worth knowing. People believe that the hydrogen bomb exists, and that is all that matters. What people believe. That's what moves this existence.

Want to Change The World? Change your beliefs. Don't care? Then let others form your beliefs. Most do the latter, which again is

“Philosophy and religion - what are they when the wind blows and the water gets up in lumps?”
- William Golding, Rights of Passage (1980)
_________________________________

Change the world? Our beliefs? Better that we should change ourselves, if we can; for, surely as the earth turns, the world will do as well without us.

No, it doesn't.

How does a plant respond to light if it doesn't sense it? Plants have photoreceptors that sense light. The human eye has photoreceptors that sense light.