Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I will not find fault with the wording and just say that not only materialists could answer positively.
�Organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic ones (this is my most important argument. after realizing this thought, I once had to reconsider my views on living things). There are viruses that are not completely alive or inanimate. There are animals (like dogs), in the presence of the soul of which as many people are sure as in the absence of it. There are transitional forms everywhere, and in intelligence, too.
If we assume that there is no such thing as a soul as God's spark, then yes, we are just complicated systems of molecules that live according to the same laws as ciliates and some sodium chloride. But we, with the help of random self-reproduction and variability, have developed a lot of devices, including self-consciousness, which is sometimes called the soul. And so in general, we are a huge community of molecules that simply have their own, atypical understanding of convenience.We are just chemistry and physics, like any substance of this world, and the mind is only one of the characteristics of this substance, the main and most important only from our human point of view.
I didn't like the wording of my own question myself, but that's all I could write using 160 characters.
Imagine that two balls roll and hit each other. The first ball undergoes inelastic deformation, while the second remains intact. We considered this case from the physical aspect. So is it possible to conclude that the ball that remained intact did evil by breaking a similar ball? I think not, because it even sounds ridiculous. So, according to the materialist, a person is a much more advanced combination of atoms, the” side ” effect of which is consciousness. But nevertheless, this does not change the essence. I.e. if I unfairly expose the nose of a passerby to inelastic deformity, then, from the point of view of morality, I have committed evil. Here's what happened from a physical point of view: a bunch of cause-and-effect atoms interacted in my brain, and then the elastic muscle tissue that can contract under the influence of nerve impulses emitted by the brain did what (cause-and-effect) it was supposed to do, namely, inelastic deformation of the nose of a passerby. Neither evil nor good was shown, because this incident was not committed by my personality (which is also a subjective reality), but by molecules, atoms and electrons that simply did what the laws of physics told them to do. If there is no good and evil, then there is no will, since this concept does not exist without the first two. Accordingly, there is no global purpose of our existence. For that which for no particular reason, without any purpose, combined and turned into us, will soon disintegrate and turn into the earth, and in billions of years-into a part of some cosmic body. So why live if the entire material foundation will rot away and leave nothing behind? Personally, this picture does not please me. So I asked myself:” Are they really materialists or atheists (atheism is a belief, and materialism is a consequence of this belief (as it seemed to me)) do they see life as a game of particles, or do they still use such moral concepts as good and evil, will and purpose of life?”
Let me try to answer the author's answer from the point of view of an Epicurean materialist-and this point of view does not necessarily coincide with my own.
1. The materialist: Who is to blame? Evolution!
Let's start from afar. So, from the point of view of the modern materialist, man is an interesting product (even, probably, a byproduct) of evolution. Adapting to life in the savanna, the former inhabitants of the forest crowns unexpectedly came in handy with their purely tree-climbing evolutionary adaptations: prehensile forelimbs, bipedality, vocalization, but most importantly-a rather complex brain. As an organ that was previously necessary for calculating movement over very rough terrain – climbing branches – the brain was used to compensate for physical inability to adapt to a new environment with the help of complex behavior. Surprisingly, this trait was supported by selection, and as a result, we have what we have.
Nevertheless, the basic operation patterns of this unique device of ours remain rather primitive. All the levels of abstraction that have emerged in our brains over hundreds of thousands of years of Homo evolution are nothing more than superstructures over relatively simple instincts, if not their adaptations and combinations.
In particular, man is a gregarious creature. Not gregarious-you don't need a lot of intelligence in a herd, but a pack animal that lives in small groups. In small groups, an evolutionarily advantageous adaptation is empathy – experiencing the feelings of another group member. To enter into someone else's position, to realize whether you will do your fellow man good or bad-helps the survival of the group. Actually, this is the basis for distinguishing between good and evil.
Here, however, we return to the previous point – primitiveness. In general, even in primates, empathy is not very well developed. This contraption is a costly and profitable evolutionary strategy – to save on it as much as possible.�
How? Well, for example, a person screams with joy. What for? In fact, primates are not initially inclined to share food (in chimpanzees, this is no longer the case). But, for the survival of the group, it will be better if the whole group eats. Here is the pleasure-ideally, from the food found-and causes the op directly, so that, with all the desire, the animal can not get drunk alone. And op, when your favorite team scores a goal, is a side effect.
Such simple methods are not always enough. Nevertheless, if you really have to resort to empathy, then it is sewn in using fairly simple methods. So, the mechanism of empathy, which applies only to group members , is too complex. In this form, it is usually not necessary – after all, interaction occurs mostly within the group; sometimes it is simply harmful – to maintain genetic diversity, it is useful to interbreed with members of another group. Thus, empathy is tied to similarity: the more similar something is to people like you, the more features you attribute to it. Accordingly, the higher the empathy. This effect can be illustrated by a quote from Neil Blomkamp, director of District 9:
And that's where the fun stuff starts. For example, young children have the ability to find “faces” in sometimes completely random patterns. “The headlights of the car are eyes, the radiator is a mouth, this car is smiling, and this one is sad.” Adults interact with pets in the same way as with small children. That is, at an early stage of development, every person and, as ethnographic studies show, humanity in general is characterized by animism – the endowment of objects and phenomena of living nature with human features. With your soul, if you will – that's how anima is translated from Latin. And, accordingly, the concept of good and evil-an evolutionary adaptation for survival in a group-is transferred to other creatures and inanimate nature.�
There is also a downside. A kindred with empathy disorders is potentially dangerous for a guppa. It is desirable to exclude it from this group – again, this gives an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, such a person “breaks the template” and causes fear. Using the cinematic example again, consider a quote from Hajime Isayama, author of the manga Attack on Titan. Let me remind you that in this manga, people are attacked by extremely anthropomorphic creatures-titans – with completely inhuman behavior.
In the prism of these considerations, consider the example of the author of the question:
Let's develop this argument. Let's imagine that a person:
Split the stone
I ate a root vegetable
Consider the opposite gradation. A man was killed:
A fallen tree branch
Burn of a poisonous jellyfish
Regardless of our beliefs, there is a rather illustrative gradation of actions according to “malice”, depending on the” humanity ” of counterparties, isn't it? Of course, this is only a first approximation. At a higher level, abstract thinking, coupled with animism and culture, begins to produce bizarre and highly ambiguous judgments about good and evil. In the examples below, let each person answer for himself what is good and what is bad, but still, if possible, trying on the scheme we have outlined above.:
The rider wasp lays its eggs in a caterpillar, which is immobilized by a sting in the nerve nodes (argumentThomas Huxley).
A dog wants to kill a kitten (exampleConrad Lorenz from the popular book on ethology “Man Finds a Friend”).
2. Intermezzo: Will, freedom to the tune of an accordion
Thus, the materialist asserts that “good” and “evil” are only the intricacies of animal instincts. What then to do with the “will”? The author of the question writes:
So, imagine that. I am faced with the task of choosing which notebook to buy: in a box or in a ruler. Or even unlined. I need the notebook to do my math calculations there, so it doesn't make much difference; when I don't have a notebook, I do them on used receipts from the store. Would it be good if I preferred a ruler? Will it be evil if I choose a cell? Does the lack of division into good and evil deprive me of the will to buy a notebook and the freedom to choose from the proposed options?
From the materialist's point of view, everything now depends on you. Do you believe in determinism? Do you believe that you still make a decision “by yourself” (within the framework of physical laws)? So, first comes the will, a measure of how much a person controls their own choice. Good and evil, in the light of the above discussion, are secondary to the materialist.�
(By the way, in this case, I will personally obey the laws of physics and buy a notebook in a box, because it is more familiar to me).
3. Epicurean: What should I do? Enjoy it!
So, the author asks:
First, the Epicurean will answer you with a question: why live if something remains? For the sake of a tolerable existence in the afterlife/next life? Okay, let's say. But such a belief presupposes one or more very strong hypotheses. For example, the existence of consciousness outside the body, and consciousness in the same or similar form that we have when we are awake-only then does it make sense, for example, retribution for actions. Otherwise, what is the point, for example, of living in an unconscious state for millennia? Maybe there is one, but I don't know it.
Well, let's say we live forever in consciousness. What's the point? I'm not saying it can't be-just what is it? I personally don't have an answer to this question.�
And isn't the search for the meaning of life and the desire for immortality just another twist of some of our evolutionary adaptations (see below)?
The Epicurean won't give you an answer. The Epicurean will tell you in the words of William of Baskerville in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose: “To conquer nature, you must first submit to it.” If our senses are just a bizarre combination of animal instincts, let's just accept it and use them properly.�
Comfort is more pleasant than discomfort. By making others comfortable – or at least not interfering with them-we may be limiting ourselves somewhat, but we can hope that it won't cause us too much discomfort in the future. Or it will save those who will live after us from it – and the realization of this will bring us comfort, thanks to the mechanism of empathy.�
Perhaps, for the fact that someone will make others comfortable, the name, deeds will live – and this is already some kind of immortality. Perhaps humanity will achieve immortality one way or another. But all these paths will be completed due to the cunning twist of another evolutionary device.
4. Credo: Curiosity.
What makes animals live? I doubt that many creatures, other than humans, think about it. Do they even realize their impending death? Hardly. After all, people – at least the vast majority-live as long as they have the strength, as if they will live forever. Empathy and logic make us understand that this is not so. What's next? That, at least, is curious.
Curiosity is a derivative of the instinct of self-preservation. Unfamiliar scares-this is an instinct inherent in all multicellular animals with at least some nervous activity. It is not surprising that the evolutionary advantage will be given to those creatures that can learn to understand the unknown. To do this, they need a stimulus – in the form of a pleasure hormone, for example.�
This whole complex can be described in two words: curiosity satisfaction. It is usually most developed at a critical, young age. But many people have learned to carry it through their entire lives.�
The Epicurean in me lives for the sake of that hormonal release that brings satisfaction to curiosity. It's a great feeling. It may or may not be combined with empathy, but it is precisely because people have tried to satisfy it that I am now sitting at a flat laptop, not wandering around the sun – baked savanna, always hungry. Or, more accurately, my remains aren't rotting away somewhere in the same place.
We are afraid of ending our existence. What's next – the instinct of self-preservation ignites curiosity in us. Someone gets satisfaction in simple answers. Some don't.�
Personally, I'm not exactly a materialist. And not exactly an Epicurean. Here I only acted as their lawyer. I'm just curious as to how well-founded this answer will seem. And even just – whether someone will read it in full.
Absolutely meaningless question with extremely incorrect wording. First, materialist is not equivalent to atheist. Secondly, in the absence of a soul, the living differs from the inanimate by the presence of reason. It's strange that this can be misunderstood…