erraticwisdom

Comments

1. It is not merely that the component pieces have functions that the organism as a collection of systems has a function; it is that the effort (action? and therefore the function?) of the organism can be united in the pursuit of a singular objective that gives the organism as a whole at least the capability to have “A” function.
   
   That the alignment of the systems is greatly influenced by one in particular (the neural) is of significance. That our ability to cognate – for our purposes here, manipulate symbols mentally – is human alone is a fallacy. Some of the other primates infrequently display insight that implies such an action. If anything, Aristotle’s argument for a human function could much more easily be made for that of non-literal communication…
   
   however, this could easily digress into a chicken-egg discussion involving higher order reasoning and language (and the validity of the sapir-wharf hypothesis.) I do agree, however, that his support for (3) and (4) is weak. I also posit that merely because an organism may have a function, that it does not exclude the organism from having other functions. As a means to achieve happiness, well that is a very sticky wicket. We’d first have to codify what happiness is, and is not.
   
   The contentment of a Compassionate Buddha would not, i suppose, be sufficient pleasure for many Americans to consider it a state of happiness. The confusion of thrills for happiness is a digression, I’ll admit. If the application of the human function – meaningful symbol manipulation – is to lead to happiness, then surely it is exclusively through applying rational doubt to ones own assumptions (a la Descarte) to come to intuit Maya.
   
   In lore, eating from the tree of knowledge is what forced adam and eve from the garden of eden—knowing seperates one from enjoying the work of the universe.
   
   Likewise, it is the process of symbol manipulation and the requisit abstraction – our method of understanding – which prevents us from intuiting our experience directly.
   
   Is it so that to be human is to lose reality so that we may be more effective at survival, and the peak experience in survival is to escape that craft and intuit the nature of things directly? Or to realize the illusory nature of our existences themselves?
   
   However, this argument is (somewhat) based upon the mechanism which it is claiming to understand. If we look at our function most objectively, our function becomes quite clear:
   
   We are self-perpetuating poop factories!

   Aaron Blohowiak

   Feb 2, 07:11 AM #
2. First, thank you for a very well thought-out comment. It is contributions like yours that make the site exciting.
   
   “That the alignment of the systems is greatly influenced by one in particular (the neural) is of significance. That our ability to cognate – for our purposes here, manipulate symbols mentally – is human alone is a fallacy.”
   
   Yes, it seemed like a dubious point at best.
   
   “I also posit that merely because an organism may have a function, that it does not exclude the organism from having other functions.”
   
   That is true, although I believe that Aristotle was interested in finding the singular end and function of humans.
   
   “If the application of the human function – meaningful symbol manipulation – is to lead to happiness, then surely it is exclusively through applying rational doubt to ones own assumptions…”
   
   Meaningful symbol manipulation implies something similar to the knowledge-seeking that Socrates apparently felt was the end, and that seems more plausible to me.
   
   “We are self-perpetuating poop factories!”
   
   That’s it! Our problems are solved :D

   Thame

   Feb 2, 07:16 PM #
3. Cheers!
   
   Now, if we were to combine the realization that knowledge is an Important (if not exclusive) function of the mind, and that an ancillary, if not patently obvious, function of humans is the manufacture of waste, then perhaps sanitation is the paramount function of man! Applying both cognition and poo, it is a unifying skill by which the goodness of a man can be judged.

   Aaron Blohowiak

   Feb 3, 06:37 AM #
4. Haha, that made my day (or what’s left of it)!
   Thanks

   Thame

   Feb 3, 06:58 PM #
5. What goodness is… I would say it is an oppinion held by the person judging it. For If a person views another person as “Evil” for leaving excrement at their doorstep, however, a porto-potty cleaner may simply view it a s a call to duty and clean it up as a sighn of devotion to his job.
   
   -More of a double ontondra then an oppinion of mine

   Spencer

   Sep 10, 08:00 PM #

6. I’m going to attempt to turn a discussion on the definition and happiness of humanity away from poop, if only because I think the consideration of our ends shouldn’t remain at our bottom. All things considered, philosophy should appreciate what humor it gets since it often seems in rare supply of it, so nicely done.

   It is interesting to use the definition of some thing, that is, its characteristic summation, its end function, as a way to determine what gives it satisfaction, or even justice. A rabbit is an herbivore with fine hearing and the ability to move quickly, though also freeze completely when tensed. Because of these attributes it is able to evade being eaten and eat what keeps it whole, thus being able to live. Whatever its predator might be is suited for the task and would thoroughly enjoy a bit of rabbit and from such nutrition go about its life. In both cases, the attributes of the subject are key in the creation of its well-being. A calculator is purposeful in calculating but it can’t be at peace or unrest, its not sentient, for all we know.

   So then humanity, what defines us? I would say the degree of our mind. It is not enough to say that this is the most notable of our characteristics, among other forms of life, but rather that this is the origin for all that we would make for ourselves, towards the life that we could possibly cherish above all others. Through our intellect we may design a way of life, a civilization, that reflects the very just existence that we can conceive of.

   I can see the relevance of function in this, in that it would decide what could be produced and what could be appreciated. I wonder if there aren’t other ways to go about the same determination, but just as long as we are making the attempt and pursuing its ideal, that is what matters.

   Michael August

   Sep 4, 12:23 PM #