Hahaha, the house cat! Love it

What about the Humans strive for justice?

I love this idea!! This was more in line with The NY Times perspective…a very interesting concept to add to the conversation

@@AliviaBrown the thought crosses my mind as I think if I was left on an island with many other species with no tools, clothing, or anything that other humans help me make, I'd probably not survive against the other predators. It's the fact that I can draw from the knowledge of other humans that would give me a major advantage.

@@AliviaBrown also btw, really loved your video! The naturalistic fallacy part kept me thinking all night. Would keep an eye out for your future videos!

@@cooperreed1709 I'm not completely sure if that's a tendency only specific to humans. I've heard that crows keep grudges. If I'm not wrong, other apes also have a tendency to seek justice for their clan. But it does remind of this really well explained podcast episode by Darryl Cooper where he talks about how one of the big steps of humans moving from a tribe to a nation state is to convince people to follow the laws that avoid injustices from escalating into tribal fights. I'm probably doing a disservice to it by the way I'm trying to summarise it but it was really interesting so I thought I'd share. Nvm!

Day is made 😭😭😭 Thank you!!

Yeah, I think you're right on the money with the last sentence. Our preoccupation with and even ability to ask questions about meaning and purpose seems distinctly human. Whereas other animals are born, live hard lives, and die unceremoniously, we can't seem to accept uncertainty, brutality, death, the absurdity of existence, unless there is some reason, purpose, or meaning behind it. When a question is too big to answer, we make up stories. False certainty is preferred over the intense anxiety of not knowing if life is even worth living, for instance. I'm pretty sure this is the psychological basis of the religious impulse, but it seems to me that even the most scientific minds make assumptions based on beliefs they usually don't even recognize they carry. So, in a way, I think the answer to what it means to be human is hiding in the question: meaning itself, the question itself, that we even can think to ask it, that we have some stake in answering it, is what it means to be human.

@@johannaashira I think at least in the west most religions were made via selection pressure (ie. have social cohesion or be conquered) and it was a way to escrow social contract. What seems to add credence to that is the degree to which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have convergent esoteric sects but all three would tend to be seen as heretical from the exoteric level (as well people would have a better doctrinal context for Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross's visions than they did). For people believing things - there's familial upbringing but there's also a lot of the Jungian experiential stuff. I've been curious about that area for a while and considering it might be true that we don't have a great grasp on how deeply we construct reality or how much fitness landscapes might edit what we can or can't see (thinking particularly here of Donald Hoffman's work).

Thanks for watching!

Thank you so much, I hope so too!

SO BACK!!

This is such an interesting thought that I didn’t even consider. In so many ways we are the product of all the things we take in…thank you for sharing!

Ah, I see we have a student of the One Great Work with us. While adaptation is an ubiquitous feature among all organisms, man's intellectual capacity makes that feature take on a whole other aspect--one offerring great power, with an equally great burden of responsibility. And why are we so vastly unique in this regard? Surely, this must be considered in answering the question this video poses. But as you are no doubt aware, the answers may lie beyond humanity itself, and uncertainty about human origins may render an answer more elusive than expected ;)

are reflexes taught? is anatomy taught? is genetic & epigenetic inheritance taught? is the environmental niche we are born into taught? what's your evidence that language is *the* source of programming? isn't the plethora of diverse non-linguistic behavior also programming? we are clearly not "only what we are taught to be."

@@bbblackwell I'm amazed & always glad to see others that are involved with the OGW and/or understand the principles of Natural Law. And it happens more than I ever thought! My goal is to become more involved with the network and of course, take more direct action. And yes, I think those answers lie beyond what we are taught & understand as truth. IMO, there's been some kind of interference or creation along the way that got us on this planet.

@@AliviaBrown Thank you! I think if you pay attention to all the media we see around us, you'll see how powerfully this tool has been used upon people in general.

This is so sweet, thank you! I would love to go to India one day

I’m not familiar with this! What is that?

This was EXCELLENT!! I love hearing the perspectives from me people with different backgrounds. And the philosophy background is 100% shining through. I love what you said about being “human” existing in purely a social context. I also agree that it’s rather limiting to only look at this question from a biological or cultural perspective. We need to take all options into account. Thank you!

"The ability to conduct recognition is what sets us apart from the rest of the manifestations of the Will to Live, and it has nothing to do with biology or culture, even time, because down to its core, the act of recognition is a leap of faith." 1. you introduced some obscure entity/process -- the 'will to live' without any evidence. 2. you identify 'us' as manifestations of this entity. 3. you say that 'conducting' recognition has nothing to do with biology or culture, as at its core (essentialism much?), it is a leap of faith. 4. you asserted the existence of an obscure, non-empirical existent, claimed that 'we' are manifestations of that entity, and that the core of what separates 'us' apart from other manifestations of your mystical entity, is a leap of faith -- and that this is *not* biological, or cultural. so, you also imply that 'a leap of faith' is neither something cultural. aS a pHiLoSoPHeR oF ScIEnCe & bIoLoGy pOStGraDUaTe rEsEArChEr, i'd suggest that such nonempirical, obscurantist vibes-based riffing is incapable of explaining real data, and throws a wrench into empirically grounded sensemaking. you also say that you'd 'argue', but you didn't -- you just provided assertions. why do you think contemporary scientific communities don't research the schopenhauerian 'will to live'? "When we say someone is human, we recognize they are suffering equally as ourselves are, and in this simple act, we validate their humanity as well as the humanity of ourselves." okay, so you made an empirical claim about what people mean with 'human'-talk. what evidence do you have that that is how people (who, when, where exactly?) construe the concept of 'human'? are people with neurological damage that interferes with recognizing/experiencing/relating with suffering, differently/less/more/non-human? if recognizing suffering is the "core" secret ingredient, what's the status of non-human organisms we recognize are suffering? "You don’t, you take a leap of faith, you choose to recognize their humanity and offer consolation, and in so doing you recognize yourself as another human who shares that suffering. " what about people who don't take your 'non-biological, non-cultural leap of faith'? what if someone does not offer consolation? in not performing the core secret ingredient, are they therefore not/differently/more/less human? "to approach this question from a purely biological or cultural point of view is narrow by perspective and dangerous by effect." i'd strongly disagree. what seems more plausibly dangerous than well-established explanations, theories and most importantly, the methodologies of our collectively negotiated empirically-grounded inquiring activities, is asserting the kind of nonempirical speculation that can't be publically investigated. i don't know what kind of dangerous effect you're thinking about that's inherent in a biological-cultural approach. "by establishing a biological or cultural constraints of what is “human”, we build up this inflexible fence that defines what is means to be “us humans”. And once there is “us”, there is “them”, the non-humans, the “Other”, upon which we build our comfort, to which we shift our blames with no hesitation or guilt," us-them dynamics are extremely well-established phenomena, yes. how are they best explained? it's several empirically grounded, experimental disciplines, all special sciences, not schopenhauerian vibes. now, not to diss schopp too hard, of course people can and do use speculative, imaginative, nonempirical stuff to cope, to make sense of reality. nothing wrong with that. but relative to our best collective empirical explanations, where do you think schoppy theories fit? what novel predictions does he make? what precisely can we do with his conjectures? what mix of theoretical & epistemic virtues does he and his conjectures feature? all in all, sorry a little for my abrasiveness, but this style of mystical philosophy slightly irritates me, however, this is nothing personal against you. also noted that you called your text rambling, so i'm not taking it too seriously, but i'm still curious about how and why you arrive at these kinds of conclusions? what kind of philosphy are you studying at uni?

@@AliviaBrown It is a pleasure for me as well, your video encouraged me to organize some of my floating thoughts that i might have left there unattended otherwise. Hope to see more of your videos!

@@real_pattern First of all i want to thank you for engaging in this socratic dialogue with me, it is genuinely pleasant for me to encounter different perspectives, as it provides a window to glean at other subjectivities. I would like to clarify that I call my text rambling because English is not my native language and some of the wording and phrasing choices I employ might lack clarity and cause misunderstanding, as I see they have. So let me offer my clarification and defense for my philosophical assertions. I see three major points in your counter argument. First, and perhaps the most fundamental one, is that my (or rather Schopenhauer’s) stand lacks empirical support. I whole-heartedly agree. But that is why metaphysics is called such. Since the age of Hume and Kant, empiricism and the modern scientific methods it hatched has greatly improved our qualities of life, to the point that we forget both Hume and Kant are agnostic. What these philosophical pioneers did was to carve out a portion of our experience for future generations to study, a portion that is quantitive and quasi-universal. But they were not at all saying it is the whole picture of human experience, let alone the entirety of existence. However, perhaps to their surprise (but not to that of Nietszche), the complete dominance of empiricism led to a drought of life’s meaning and value. It is not to say empiricism is a monster we need to get rid of, by no means our lives would be better without it, but is just a tool we employ to better understand the world, and just like any tool, it is not omnipotent. From your text I sense you have a strong contempt for the non-quantifiable part of human experience, to the point that merely entertaining the thought of these “vibes” irritates you, that if a theory does not empower us to “do” stuff, it is meaningless. But why? The goal of empirical scientific studies is not to produce more empirical scientific studies, it’s the betterment of human lives, which covers more than physical conditions, but also how we view ourselves irrelevant to those physical conditions. I mean, given the identical physical conditions, two individuals can arrive at extremely different mental states simply by shifting their philosophical perspective. We can assert the same cup as half full or half empty, we aren’t “doing” anything to the cup or water, nor are we quantitively measuring the volume of cup and water then doing a division to see if water exceeds 50.0%. This is what allows for subjectivity and individuality. Why be irritated by these non-quantified characteristics of life when they are so essential to the human experience? Schopenhauer, and indeed many philosophers, did not offer “novel predictions” we can employ to transform the world, but they did offer novel perspectives we can employ to view the world we find ourselves in, which is complementary to empirical studies, and no less valuable to the ultimate goal: to live a better life. Second is about the act of recognition and how it excludes the people with disabilities and or unwillingness to perform the actions. Let me start by clarifying that “offering consolation” is merely a metaphor I employ to paint a picture, not that you literally have to go over to them pat their head and and say “there there”. For me, to recognize others’ suffering and therefore humanity is closely linked to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, where he states humans should be considered as ends in themselves and never as mere means. Recognition of suffering leads to recognition of humanity, fulfilling the prerequisite of not considering humans as mere means. Additionally, you talked about people’s disability or unwillingness to perform recognition, and worry that my “recognizing my humanity by recognizing others’ humanity” assertion will hinder their classification as humans. But know that all recognitions are done from a subjective point of view, the best one can say is “this entity is human *to me*”. Does a mentally-ill person truly suffer? I don’t know, just like I don’t know for sure if any entity foreign to my subjectivity is indeed suffering, but I can still recognize their potential inability to suffer and from which the inability to deeply connect with other people as a form of suffering (an undesirable state for myself as human), and state that they are human to me. I would also like to expand on this and say it doesn’t stop at homo sapients. Vegetarians might recognize the suffering of animals and acknowledge their “humanity” to some extent; in a futuristic world a highly advanced chatGPT might spark debate about whether it is “humane” to verbally abuse it. By considering the recognition of suffering as the definition of humanity, we open up new pathways where we would easily hit a dead end with traditional paradigms. Third is that purely biological/cultural paradigms are not dangerous. Let me clarify that I studied philosophical genealogy and their effect on social phenomena, case study involves mainly hispanic areas. The two examples I brought up are major consequences of biological/cultural paradigms. To put it simply, the conquering and indeed enslavement of South America as well as the Inquisition are hugely fueled by the ideas of “they don’t look like us” and they don’t believe in our God”. Even though as far as the catholic religion is concerned, conversion is promoted and witch-trials are prohibited, how the fundamental paradigms translated to social behaviors outside academic and theological purview ran out of control, which is the danger I mentioned. I hope this clarifies my statement a bit, and encourage you to take a look at where the light of empiricism does not reach, and failing that, at least resolving some of the resentment you hold towards the non-empirical part of existence. After all, if you ask me, philosophy, as the love of wisdom, should be a joyful endeavor and one of the greatest temporary relief from life’s suffering.

this is iconic haha...naturalistic fallacy ftw

@@AliviaBrown You'd think this is an ancient way of thinking, but you'd be amazed at how much it's still "common sense". I mean, I get it, but I don't. Roads and airplanes are also natural phenomena. Speaking about linguistic anthropology... ("First there was the word... " And then the rest of history.)