Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:38 am

Does any other animal POLLUTE the air and the water that they NEED, to live?

Yeast polutes its environment to the point where it can no longer survive in it in the wine making process.

1. Is yeast an animal?

2. Things that happen IN ANOTHER human made environment sort of reinforces further the point I was getting at and making here.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:58 am You could say that the yeast is in an artificial environment in this case, but perhaps man has also created an artificial environment for himself, and that is why things are going pear shaped.

I would just say that yeast is NOT an animal.

I would also NOT say that ANY created environment is NOT an 'artificial environment' but is just ANOTHER 'created environment'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:58 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:38 am

Does any other animal POLLUTE the air and the water that they NEED, to live?

Yeast polutes its environment to the point where it can no longer survive in it in the wine making process. You could say that the yeast is in an artificial environment in this case, but perhaps man has also created an artificial environment for himself, and that is why things are going pear shaped.

My son who bakes sourdough bread, keeps his sourdough culture like a household pet, which it is because it needs to be treated with the respect that a living individual merits.

The difference, the big diffference, between man and his tamed animals is that tamed animals are largely artefacts of breeding and domestication, whereas men are wild animals. Unlike sheep herders, guards, sofa cuddlers, sniffers, chasers, cart pullers, milkers, men are not identical with their professions or trades. That is why we have so much difficulty knowing what we are. Many people prefer that men remain wild animals whose stock in trade is variety.

But NOT all of 'us' have ANY difficulty KNOWING 'who' AND 'what' 'we' ARE, AT ALL.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:28 am

1. Is yeast an animal?

I was just making an observation. Do we really need to have a major enquiry into such trivial things?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:44 am
Okay, and as long as we are both clear on the fact that what you think does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, then what you say and write here is all well and good.

I would not for one moment claim to have the firm grasp on "thee ACTUAL Truth" that you appear to have, Age.

Okay, but are you CLEAR that what you 'think' does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 am

The term 'self' WAS very fuzzy to 'you', people, back when this WAS being written.

I am not aware of a single satisfactory and overriding definition of the term, "self", so I am not in a position to understand exactly what you mean when you use the word. That may be a failing on my part, but there we are.

But it is NOT a failing on your part, AT ALL.

I do NOT expect absolutely ANY one to consciously KNOW some thing that they have NOT YET learned NOR been exposed to.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 am

Age wrote:

Harbal wrote: A machine part has a prescribed purpose, but I'm afraid that I can't go along with the idea that the components of the Universe are all there to serve any specific function.

WHY can you, supposedly, NOT go along with this idea here?

It would be more accurate to say that I don't go along with it, rather than can't.

Okay, now that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 am The idea implies that there is conscious intention directing the Universe, and I have no reason to think that is the case.

Just like EVERY one has NO reason to think some 'thing' being the case if they have NEVER had ANY exposure to that 'thing'.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 am

I am PRETTY SURE 'you' are NOT YET FULLY understanding 'me' here.

Yes, I suspected as much myself.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:28 am

1. Is yeast an animal?

I was just making an observation. I pose questions, for CLARIFICATION.

Observations that have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question posed only DETRACTS.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:39 am Do we really need to have a major enquiry into such trivial things?

If and when one is Truly seeking answers, which lead to finding thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', then 'Yes'.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:42 am Okay, but are you CLEAR that what you 'think' does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?

Of course I am. I am always aware of that possibility. What about you? Are you CLEAR that what you 'think' does NOT necessarily have ANY bearing on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?

I do NOT expect absolutely ANY one to consciously KNOW some thing that they have NOT YET learned NOR been exposed to.

I do not believe there is anything to learn in this case. The human concept of "self" has no absolute meaning, it varies according to who is using it, and in what context. You are welcome to demonstrate where I am mistaken in this assertion, of course.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:48 am
Observations that have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question posed only DETRACTS.

Are you going to fine me?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:28 am 1. Is yeast an animal?

I was just making an observation. Do we really need to have a major enquiry into such trivial things?

I assume this was at least a quasi-rhetorical question, but (or is it 'and') I am sure you know that a major enquiry will necessarily be a part of this dialogue I have intruded into. Or should I say MAJOR enquiry.

From Before Sunrise....

Jesse: Um, do you believe in reincarnation?
Céline: Yeah, yeah, it’s interesting.
Jesse: Most people, you know, a lot of people talk about the past lives, and things like that, you know, and even if they don’t believe in it in some specific way, you know, people have some kind of notion of an eternal soul, right?
Céline: Yeah.
Jesse: Okay. Well, this is my thought. Fifty thousand years ago, there are not even a million people on the planet. Ten thousand years ago, there’s like two million people on the planet. Now, there’s between five and six billion people on the planet, right? Now, if we all have our own, like, individual, unique soul, right, where do they all come from? Are modern souls only a fraction of the original souls?. Because if they are, that represents a five thousand-to-one split of each soul in just the last fifty thousand years, which is like a blip in the earth’s time. You know, so, at best, we’re like these tiny fractions of people, you know, walking… I mean, is that why we’re all so scattered? You know, is that why we’re all so specialized?
Céline: Wait a minute, I’m not sure I…I don’t….
Jesse: Hang on, I know, I know, its a totally scattered thought, which is kind of why it makes sense.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 12:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:48 am
Observations that have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question posed only DETRACTS.

Are you going to fine me?

You are fine. (of very high quality; very good of its kind)

Consider yourself fined.

What do you think of yourself now oh finest Harbal?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:22 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 12:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:48 am
Observations that have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question posed only DETRACTS.

Are you going to fine me?

You are fine. (of very high quality; very good of its kind)

Consider yourself fined.

What do you think of yourself now oh finest Harbal?

I feel fine, thank you, DAM.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:38 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:22 am
Do you UNDERSTAND that the ONLY True PEST on earth are HUMAN BEINGS?

Why is the human being the only true pest on earth?

Because they the ONLY ones that pollute, destroy, and make a mess of the NATURAL order of things.

Does any other animal POLLUTE the air and the water that they NEED, to live?

Where else are we to dispose human man-made pollution? ....how about dumping it all in the most distant part of outer space, do you think that would be a better place?

If man is responsible for so much pollution and waste and rubbish then maybe that could be a reason as to why it's not always likeable to be alive. And is why some people hate being alive? seems like a valid reason for hating being alive having to wallow in not only our own muck and mess, but that of billions of others folks muck and mess too.

What about all the millions of shitty nappies that get thrown away every day, and all the billions of bloody sanitary towels that get thrown away, and that's only scratching the surface of what humans throw away each day, that they need to keep them functioning like human beings on this planet.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:22 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 12:09 pm

Are you going to fine me?

You are fine. (of very high quality; very good of its kind)

Consider yourself fined.

What do you think of yourself now oh finest Harbal?

I feel fine, thank you, DAM.

Great, and right now, so do I so much so that I have to burst into song about feeling fine in celebration of this marvelous event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrAV5EVI4tU

But it is working for me, I do not even have to justify why it is working for me, why won't or don't you believe that?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:16 am'you' MISSED the WHOLE POINT, AGAIN.

But whether I missed your point or not, it doesn't make any difference to the fact that it is working for me, and that's just something I know for absolute certainty and that's all that I care about right now.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:33 amBUT what you THINK 'it' is, which I am referring to with the 'not working for you' phrase is NOT, and I will repeat IS NOT, what you THINK 'it' is.

Is this now understood?

But I do not care what I think it is that you were referring to with your claim it is 'not working for you' phrase.

I don't even need to know what you were referring to by saying it is 'not working for you' because it is working for me and that's all I need to know.

Is this understood, or is more clarification needed?