The Ethical Treatment of Animals
He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.
— Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
The Ethical Treatment of Animals
He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.
— Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
The titled responsion is an ethical claim for sure.
Daniel Sanderson
The wisdom and heuristic play for those tempted to treat animals less than ideal is the slippery slope of morality that follows. This act of negation, this refusal to consider the experience of another sentient being, is something that robs you of what it should mean to be human. Immutable? No. But who whats to live that kind of life? For sure, the animals don't.
Self Sacrifice?
Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
— Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
The titled responsion is defining and confining.
This infamous quote comes from the following passage: Those in the crossing must, in the end, know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
Referring to your inner self in the third person is like an event horizon without the black hole; sacrificial and an exercise in theology. Let me guess, the way to enlightenment is through who? You?? The sacrifice of the ego is counterfactual to Nietzsche's Will to Power and represents a spectrum and not a dichotomy of either or. The healing process of life and the preparation for death is Socratic for sure, the debt for which we all pay, and that IS the suicide of philosophy. Inward circling, the circumference of which is pedantic and represents the pejorative and adjective, the objective and the subjective, and the ethical without the theology.
Making itself intelligible is an oxymoron. To make it intelligible means that something is being made comprehensible. To make it intelligible, I must define what making it intelligible is about. The word's meaning is this: we make it intelligible by giving it a shape or form.
All human activity has an aim. But, what is this aim, this direction alone? It is to make our actions meaningful; we have to make them comprehensible so that we can use them to attain our ends.
Christine de Pizan
This meaning is called meaning. Meaning, in the widest sense of the word, is a concept. It is a set of rules by which people use language to express their ideas, feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. These things cannot be spoken without using language. A language is a definite form of thought which uses certain words to indicate certain ideas.
Language cannot be used to express a thought without it. But language is not the only thing that makes us meaningful; it is not even the most important thing. What makes us meaningful is our thoughts, feelings, and desires. If we do not use the language, what we say will be meaningless.
We cannot get ourselves meaningful unless we use language. We cannot have a meaningful life if we do not use the language. But, as long as there is language, we will have meaning. Meaning, as we know it, is a product of human activity. This meaning is a way of giving something a shape or form. That shape or form is the idea, feeling, or thought we want to express.
But, to make it meaningful, we must find a way to shape the idea or thought. How? By using language.
Language is the language that gives shape to ideas and thoughts. Language has its rules, and language must be properly used to make it meaningful. That is why, despite the many attempts, no one can be very good at making himself meaningful. by using language.
Human activity is always creating meaning; it never creates it. Human activity only makes it intelligible when it uses language to give shape to what it already has. And so we cannot make ourselves meaningful if we are not using language.
But, philosophy is the philosophy of meaning that is the work of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy is to help people see what they are doing and how they are doing it differently. It is to find out what makes them different and improve them.
Philosophy is the study of meaning. It is not merely the study of meanings but the study of meaning that makes people unique.
Philosophy is a work of living. Philosophy aims to help people see their lives as they are. instead of seeing it as they think they are. It is also a work of philosophy living because philosophy living makes a difference in people.
But philosophy is the work of philosophy. Philosophy is the work of living.
A philosophical idea can only make sense and is meaningful in the eyes of another person who thinks the same thing as you. This is how philosophy makes itself meaningful. If philosophy is the work of living, the philosophy that does not make itself meaningful cannot be philosophical.
For that reason, philosophy is suicide for philosophy. It is the philosophy of life.
A philosophical idea cannot make sense to the world except to somebody. In other words, philosophy has to get from somewhere. And the philosophy has to get from where it comes from.
That is how philosophy makes its meaning. And that is why philosophy is suicidal for philosophy.
Axiomatic to Life
Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
— Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)
The titled responsion refutes religion as the universal starting point of goodness.
It has been seen that while all religions believe human respect to be the most significant thing in human life, a huge segment of them additionally feel that human respectability isn't gotten from religion. As per the Hindu idea, human respect originates from the person's brain instead of any connection to the things around us. Henceforth, when an individual submits an off-base act, it would not be considered wrongdoing by this religion.
For instance, an individual might be uninformed and carry on in an offending way towards others, which doesn't suggest that he has not perceived their human poise. Rather, he would feel that he is correct and they are incorrect, and subsequently, he is legitimized in his conduct. Thus, the individual may do what he needs to, paying little heed to what others may consider.
Various religions trust in the thought of karma. The karma hypothesis expresses that you are conceived in this world because your folks carried out fortunate or unfortunate things. These are acquired from your previous existence, so an individual would end up in similar conditions in the following life. An individual who submits a transgression would get rebuffed through karma preliminary. When the preliminary is finished, the karma is taken out, and another life starts.
Omar Khayyam
Another idea of religion is the idea of resurrection. As indicated by this religion, an individual in this life would encounter all the past torments and distresses. Afterward, he would be reawakened into another body to defeat the past torments and distresses.
In certain religions like Hinduism, the idea of human tolerability isn't gotten from religion. An individual can submit any go about as long as it isn't frightful to some other living animal, for example, people, creatures, and so forth. Correspondingly, there is no requirement for an individual to submit an off-base act since it would hurt another person.
A few religions distinguish between what is correct and what's going on. For example, an individual who has submitted an off-base act would languish over a mind-blowing remainder of this life. In contrast, an individual who submits a correct demonstration would make some better memories and be compensated in this life.
The vast majority of the individuals are extremely strict, and they feel that religion is the closest companion of mankind. However, it may appear this way: the world has become so modernized, and there is no room for religion. Individuals have gotten sane in this relentless world, so religion isn't required.
Religion can be used for moral direction, yet it should never be used to legitimize the corrupt demonstration. The previously mentioned ideas are a portion of the various ethical quality originations available in different religions.
The ethical norms of these various religions contrast; some are more exacting than others. However, as a rule, all religions show human respectability. This idea has been obligatory by the law in numerous nations since all the legislatures expect them to guarantee an amicable society.
Every single resident of a nation must maintain this idea. Regardless of whether a resident has confidence in God, the individual in question is committed to supporting poor people and the helpless in the public arena. He couldn't have ever given their opportunity if the person was uninformed of the individual's situation out of luck.
Individuals should show worry for poor people, the destitute, and the vulnerable regardless of whether they need to live in a general public where they can call themselves rich. There ought to be no segregation in the public arena; if there were any, the entire society would fall, and we would start over from the beginning.
Regardless of how solid an individual trusts in God, the person must recollect that we have laws to keep the general public together and this remembers offering appreciation to every single individual for this world. Human respectability must be maintained to guarantee harmony in the public arena, and we would all be able to thrive.
The planksip writers' cooperative sponsors a re-writing of this article (500 words) with $500 in prize money for the best article as voted by your peers in the planksip writer's cooperative. Judged by your peers, your chance to join a community of creative thinkers and win over $750,000 in prize money is your entry point into becoming a planksip journalist.
We want to change the way people engage. The planksip organic platform is dedicated to supporting your voice as a writer and a thought leader. Join today. Membership matters!
Daniel Sanderson