Re: If life is a benefit...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:36:29 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:30:54 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:55:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> >> >> >> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical certainty
>and
>> >> >loss
>> >> >> >are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence
>of
>> >> >some
>> >> >> >being capable of  harboring them. To the best of our knowledge
>humans
>> >are
>> >> >> >the only beings capable of  logical certainty. Other (some)
>critters
>> >are,
>> >> >I
>> >> >> >believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life;
>> >> >specifically
>> >> >> >animal life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. If it were
>> >not,
>> >> >then
>> >> >> things which are not alive would be able to benefit.
>> >> >
>> >> >Benefits and deficits are value judgements. One needs to be alive to
>make
>> >> >them. Yes it is a benefit to be alive if one wants to make value
>> >judgements.
>> >> >But wait - one needs to be alive to want!. Life is not a benefit.
>Please:
>> >> >how exacty do none living things benefit?
>> >>
>> >>     That's the point. Life is the benefit which makes all others
>possible.
>> >> The matter which composes all life forms existed in other forms before
>> >> composing the present being. Did it benefit then? Does it benefit now?
>> >> Can matter benefit? Maybe not only is life the benefit which makes all
>> >> others possible, but it may be that whatever "life" is, is the only
>thing
>> >> capable of benefitting.
>> >>
>> >> >That doesn't mean
>> >> >> that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some are
>and
>> >> >some
>> >> >> are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and the
>> >> >individual
>> >> >> life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it
>appears
>> >> >that
>> >> >> some people can't understand the difference between the two,
>probably
>> >> >> because the same word is being used to denote two different ideas.
>> >> >
>> >> >I fail to see were that double meaning pertains in the original post.
>Yes
>> >> >there is Life; yes there are individual lives. So what?
>> >>
>> >>     It has been suggested (stupidly imo) that if life is a benefit,
>then
>> >alll
>> >> lives must be a benefit regardless of their quality.
>> >
>> >So you think that life is a benefit and that the suggestion that life is
>a
>> >benefit is stupid. That's an interesting point of view.
>>
>>     Life itself and individual lives are entirely different things. You
>acted
>> like you understood that, and now you act as if you feel they're the
>> same thing. Just because life is a benefit, it doesn't mean that every
>> indivual life is a benefit.
>
>What is your point? Where in my post are you getting this from? Where
>exactly do I equate life in general with individual lives? So what if I do -
>again What is your point? The debate is this. Life (be it in general or be
>it in a specific instance) is not a benefit or it is.

    It is the benefit which makes all others possible.

>Webster's: ben*e*fit 1. anything that is advantageous or for the good of a
>person or thing.

    How can non-living things benefit?

>> >> >> >If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
>> >> >> >contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments as
>to
>> >> >> >whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in one
>> >sense,
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as subtraction
>is a
>> >> >> >lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the
>possibility
>> >of
>> >> >> >loss - one needs something to loose.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>