Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:Clearly yes. Survival instinct. Just try (hypothetically) cutting your own throat to witness this.

The Japanese appeared able to override this instinct but I take the point.

Greta wrote:... Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dalek (do you have a rat onna bun for sale? ...

Ooo! A girl nerdy geek or is that geeky nerd girl. Welcome wyrd sister.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greta wrote:... Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dalek (do you have a rat onna bun for sale? ...

Ooo! A girl nerdy geek or is that geeky nerd girl. Welcome wyrd sister.

Reminds me of a cool name for a cat someone came up with; Stir fry.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greta wrote:... Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Dalek (do you have a rat onna bun for sale? ...

Ooo! A girl nerdy geek or is that geeky nerd girl. Welcome wyrd sister.

I believe it's the latter.

May you be spared from smiting by the Great God Om.

Greta wrote:I believe it's the latter.

Ah! One of them.

May you be spared from smiting by the Great God Om.

No problem there as I follow the later Om and he follows his commandments, barring that I'm always prepared as I have my towel.

Arising_uk wrote:... I'm always prepared as I have my towel.

Now it's Hitchhikers!

Philosophy Explorer,
You say that, humans do have some instincts but have lost other instincts, but usage of brain is there to substantiate for the loss. So what exactly do you want us to respond to?

Anyways, I believe that humans have taken over the whole world in terms of land and food, and so animal life is severely handicapped, and in that measure according to our share we encounter pain/suffering. To the extent we become highly instinctual again and genuinely care for all life in general, then we will fare okay. Do we not say that God cares for all and God has everything, well then much of our suffering will leave if we care for all life in the world as we will be like God in the world.

Beauty wrote:Philosophy Explorer,
You say that, humans do have some instincts but have lost other instincts, but usage of brain is there to substantiate for the loss. So what exactly do you want us to respond to?

Anyways, I believe that humans have taken over the whole world in terms of land and food, and so animal life is severely handicapped, and in that measure according to our share we encounter pain/suffering. To the extent we become highly instinctual again and genuinely care for all life in general, then we will fare okay. Do we not say that God cares for all and God has everything, well then much of our suffering will leave if we care for all life in the world as we will be like God in the world.

Welcome aboard Beauty.

You've made several statements which I'll respond to. Where you say we encounter pain and suffering due to animal life becoming severely handicapped, how? - you've specifically mentioned about humankind taking over land and food. How does that severely handicap animal life? If anything, since humans take care of animals, I fail to see on the whole how animals are doing worse. As far as becoming wholly instinctual again and genuinely caring for all life in general, I don't see that as being true since, e.g., there's been war and conflict throughout history.

As far as your beliefs in God, those are your beliefs. Humankind does care for children, animals, pets, welfare, etc. Show us where it states in any Bible that caring for all life in the world (through instinct) will diminish suffering.
Plus I will add that in the OT, it clearly shows that God doesn't care for all life in the world since He brought a great flood upon the Earth which nearly wiped out all of humankind.

PhilX

Greta wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:... I'm always prepared as I have my towel.

Now it's Hitchhikers!

Is there anyone on the internet who isn't familiar with that trilogy, all 5 or 6 volumes?

thedoc wrote:Is there anyone on the internet who isn't familiar with that trilogy, all 5 or 6 volumes?

But did they read them at the time.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Is there anyone on the internet who isn't familiar with that trilogy, all 5 or 6 volumes?

But did they read them at the time.

I did, and I read them as they came out, and I saw the original BBC TV series. I thought the more recent 2005 movie was garbage, and anyone who liked it couldn't have read the books or seen the 1981 movie.

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Is there anyone on the internet who isn't familiar with that trilogy, all 5 or 6 volumes?

But did they read them at the time.

I did, and I read them as they came out, and I saw the original BBC TV series. I thought the more recent 2005 movie was garbage, and anyone who liked it couldn't have read the books or seen the 1981 movie.

1) There was no 1981 movie.

They obviously had seen the original TVseries of 1981, and the books. But you cannot make a 2 hour film do justice to the depth of Adam's conception.
The real Original was neither the TV series NOR the books. HGTTG was originally an extended radio series, which still sounds fresh and vibrant. You should look it up. it's fun and rather good.

By 2005 Douglas Adams had some trouble keeping control of the project since he was no longer talking to the producers on account of the fact that he no longer was in possession of a mouth, being dead for four years.
But the 2005 film is an example of what you get when you take a British classic and let the Americans get hold of it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:But did they read them at the time.

I did, and I read them as they came out, and I saw the original BBC TV series. I thought the more recent 2005 movie was garbage, and anyone who liked it couldn't have read the books or seen the 1981 movie.

1) There was no 1981 movie.

They obviously had seen the original TVseries of 1981, and the books. But you cannot make a 2 hour film do justice to the depth of Adam's conception.
The real Original was neither the TV series NOR the books. HGTTG was originally an extended radio series, which still sounds fresh and vibrant. You should look it up. it's fun and rather good.

By 2005 Douglas Adams had some trouble keeping control of the project since he was no longer talking to the producers on account of the fact that he no longer was in possession of a mouth, being dead for four years.
But the 2005 film is an example of what you get when you take a British classic and let the Americans get hold of it.

The truth!

Yes, the 2005 film was a huge disappointment. It would be nice to see a version that retained the British wit but with props and effects beyond cardboard boxes and tinfoil.

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I did, and I read them as they came out, and I saw the original BBC TV series. I thought the more recent 2005 movie was garbage, and anyone who liked it couldn't have read the books or seen the 1981 movie.

1) There was no 1981 movie.

They obviously had seen the original TVseries of 1981, and the books. But you cannot make a 2 hour film do justice to the depth of Adam's conception.
The real Original was neither the TV series NOR the books. HGTTG was originally an extended radio series, which still sounds fresh and vibrant. You should look it up. it's fun and rather good.

By 2005 Douglas Adams had some trouble keeping control of the project since he was no longer talking to the producers on account of the fact that he no longer was in possession of a mouth, being dead for four years.
But the 2005 film is an example of what you get when you take a British classic and let the Americans get hold of it.

The truth!

Yes, the 2005 film was a huge disappointment. It would be nice to see a version that retained the British wit but with props and effects beyond cardboard boxes and tinfoil.

That is why the Radio series was so damn good. Not even modern CGI could match the visual effects of the original 1978 Radio presentation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) There was no 1981 movie.

There was a TV movie release that was a compilation of the 1981 TV series. I had it on video and watched it several times. It was much better than the 2005 movie.