| | Donald,
I like your response.
You write: “I also do not like to help weak people, but I do sometimes, and there is a reason. Is it a logical reason? Not necessarily. It is more of a 'I have so much to go around I can afford to lose some and not even notice' approach. And sometimes people can be surprising.”
It’s funny that you say that there is not always a logical reason, but then you go on to demonstrate the logic in your reasoning. I don’t think any reasons can be illogical, whether we realize the logic consciously or not. That logic can be flawed yes, but it is still present. That is what I am trying to figure out – the logic behind the actions of animal lovers.
You say: “Parental instinct may have a part to play in humans desire to care for animals.”
Hmm maybe… But that doesn’t seem quite right either.
Dean,
We do not seem to be communicating very well. You are arguing against points that I did not make.
You write: “Yes, we are capable of changing our feeling and thoughts, through reasoning. It is us, specifically our neurons, which do this.”
Uh-huh. I was not implying that we do not choose with our minds. I was responding to your comment: “Because these are the values that these people's neurons choose. Neurons choose. The wind blows.”
This seemed to say that we (yes, our neurons), have no say in what those neurons are up to. Further, I never said that we can choose “whatever we want” outside the realm of reality.
Lance,
Hi. Thanks. You too.
Summer,
Thanks for the reply. I also feel like a human pet at times.
I am not complaining. I simply like to understand the core of every issue.
Scott,
You write: “Perhaps your cat is your ID-projection. That is, by loving a pet, you are vicariously giving yourself love. Try asking in the psych forum.”
Interesting point, but no, in my case, my cat is not my “ID-projection.”
When I want to feed/protect other animals it is not because I love them, and it is not because I do not love myself enough.
Try asking a psych forum, you say? Okay. Thanks. But you see, I am not trying to understand only my own instincts, I am trying to crack the nature/functional purpose of that instinct in general. That is why this is, in many ways, a philosophical issue.
You write: “An Objectivist wouldn't ask, it implies your wondering what is "normal"”
What a terrible thing to say! Tsk tsk.
First of all, why wouldn’t an Objectivist wonder what is normal? I don’t think I’ve ever asked myself that question, but I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
Second of all, I am not attempting to decide whether my actions are normal. I am perfectly comfy with my actions. I am interested in determining WHY they are normal.
Besides, if an Objectivist should ask, why has an Objectivist taken the time to answer?
Dean,
I can’t crack that code. What does it mean? It looks clever.
Tania
|
|
