V-2nd - Chapter 10, Part II: What is Man?

[Michael Bailey]

Laura Kelber wrote:

> Why has Man been so intent on comparing himself (ourselves) to an inanimate object?  Kind of the opposite of positing a religious deity, which gives us the luxury of accepting without understanding.  If we're merely machines, we can be drawn, dissected, predicted and completely known.  Not to mention that gives us, as machine-creators, a godlike status.  A seductive metaphor for anyone with a reasonably large ego who's willing to truncate the nuances of human emotion and experience.
>

it's the opposite of existentialism...
inanimate objects can only be defined, whereas people can define themselves?

on a unitary level, that works till you leave the house, then you get
defined all day long to some extent.  Although, still, if you have
that spark, that inspiration, it can make a difference in the inner
experience...which can affect the results...

maybe that's a key difference, the existence of an inner experience
that can affect the results

is there a philosophy of experientialism?


also, fleetingly, I wonder about comparisons to animals (like Aesop's
Fables) - have they become less common as fewer of us have daily
dealings with them, and has that affected the relative frequency of
comparisons to inanimate objects?
Sure, probably!  Probably a shame: a philosophy of biologicalism might be fun...






-- 
"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a
violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural
liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the
whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all
governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical." -
Adam Smith