Philosophy Now Forum

i blame blame wrote:What do you mean by mechanism? Processes that obey the laws of quantum mechanics (or some, as yet unknown higher-order physical law) that are "materialistic"? then I'd say it's not distinct from it.

Also, not all conceivable lifeforms are organic. They could be silicon-based, artificially intelligent etc.

If it's not distinct from mechanism, then why reject that what I've said as a false dichotomy?

Metadigital wrote: If it's not distinct from mechanism, then why reject that what I've said as a false dichotomy?

You wrote:

Metadigital wrote: Another divide comes from seeing the world in mechanistic or organic terms. That is, seeing nature using the metaphor or a machine or an organism. Personally, I reject the mechanistic outlook, leaning more to organicism. I'm critical of the "super-organism" concept, that is calling an ecosystem an organism, but I think it's a better metaphor than a machine can provide us.

If you intended an exclusive "or" (either machine or organism) then you were committing a false dichotomy. If it was an inclusive "or", then not.

i blame blame wrote:If you intended an exclusive "or" (either machine or organism) then you were committing a false dichotomy. If it was an inclusive "or", then not.

How is it a false dichotomy to say that a common division between environmentalists exists between mechanistic and organicist views, though? I never suggested that those were the only two views. If you look at my following posts, I hold neither.

In your refutation, you suggested an alternative that ended up to be mechanistic. I think that illustrated my point quite well, actually.

Metadigital wrote: How is it a false dichotomy to say that a common division between environmentalists exists between mechanistic and organicist views, though? I never suggested that those were the only two views. If you look at my following posts, I hold neither.

But in that post you claimed to lean toward the "organicist" views.

Metadigital wrote:In your refutation, you suggested an alternative that ended up to be mechanistic. I think that illustrated my point quite well, actually.

I didn't deny that lifeforms are organisms. So far, life science has provided no hint that live organisms do not follow the laws of chemistry and therefore quantum mechanics.

Hey, I hope that anyone of you can help me with an essay. I'm coming from science and have quite a lot of problems to structure my essays well and to put good and detailed arguments in order. So this is the question that we got:

Bryan Norton defines "weak anthropocentrism" in terms of the difference between "considered preferences" and "felt preferences" and claims that weak anthropocentrism is adequate to deal with the environmental crisis (i.e. there is no need to buy into the idea of intrinsic value, or to adopt any non-anthropocentric ethics). Do you agree?

Can anyone of you, if you have a spontaneous idea, maybe help me to put some arguments? That would be very kind of you. I think, that I don't agree with this statement or Norton's opinion but I'm having some difficulties to say why exactly..

Thank you so much, I really appreciate your help!
Nora

beginning with an anthropormorphic fallacy, and expanding upon said fallacy, leads neither to utopia or truth...

-Imp