First, the reason we do things is often buried in all the myriad factors in our lives going back to our childhood. Variables we have little or no real understanding or control over.
Someone would have to have followed Jakeyjake around 24/7, year in and year out. Noting all of the experiences he had involving bugs until they come to one [or more] that might explain how and why he thinks and feels as he does “here and now”.
Then there are the parts buried in his subconscious and unconscious mind. And who really knows how our genes predispose us to go in different directions.
And then the possibility that we live in a wholly determined universe in which he steps on bugs for whatever reason only because he could never have not had those reasons and could never have not stepped on bugs.
I like your fatalistic way of questioning the nature of things. I especially like your last statement, which seems to suggests the possibility that the conditions of this specific universe have been determined in such a way that it would never have been possible for there to exist a version of me who didn’t step on bugs, because its conditions only allowed for the events and experiences that led up to my indifference toward the bugs that I step on.
Oh my god, I can’t believe I just typed that out. Did I describe the possibility in question correctly? And in your opinion, that does exonerate me for my sins?
Do you sometimes do things without any reason at all?
It seems to me it is meaningful or consequential to the one choosing the act or they wouldn’t choose it, especially with any regularity.
But so far you haven’t reached the same stage in our discussion. You haven’t said ‘I like killing bugs.’ Or I like killing bugs more that [activity X] you could have done instead.
Do you know what the emoticon you chose was? evilfun. That is, with the word fun in there. It’s certainly an uneven battle.
Well, there’s the part above about you liking and preferring it to other activities. We can start there.
Let’s raise the stakes for a moment to see what I am getting at. If you killed small mammals without any particular cause - they are not pests in your house, they are not trying or succeeding at getting at your food, etc. - this would be considered more problematic to more people. It can even be a sign of mental illness. Now small mammals are closer to us, more likley to elicit empathy and so on. But one might wonder why someone does that. Even you might wonder, despite being a meat eater, pest killer, why someone did that, what their motivation was. You might or might not worry if you came home and found your kid in the backyard stoming on squirrels. Why is this the activity he chooses and not another. Why make even the slight extra effort to kill something when one has no practical motivation to do so?
So while the stakes are lower with insects and the difference between us and them greater, it’s still a question why this activity, however short in time each time, is attractive?
The intention of my question was to spotlight the one-sidedness of his attitude … he expects others to explain their behavior while he can’t or won’t explain his own.
Nothing in your response addresses that.
Sure, one could say that life is too complicated to understand motivations and leave it there. He and others are all off the hook.
The determinism/free will conundrum is embedded philosophically in what is called an antinomy: “a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.”
Both philosophers and scientists have been grappling with it now for thousands of years. And, to the best of my current knowledge, it has not been resolved definitively.
Only I take the quandary even further back. How to explain individual attitudes about stepping on bugs going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself: why does something exist and not nothing? And why this something and not something else?
But: accepting that no one seems able to answer questions like this, let’s assume that we have free will and this something does in fact exist and we are in it.
Okay, how then to explain individual reactions to stepping on bugs. As scientists and/or philosophers, can that be pinned down? Maybe. Maybe not.
What I surmise though is embedded in this:
Someone would have to have followed you around 24/7, year in and year out. Noting all of the experiences you had involving bugs until they come to one [or more] that might explain how and why you think and feel as you do “here and now”.
The part I explore in my signature threads.
And the distinction I make between facts that can be established about any particular individual stepping or not stepping on bugs for any particular reasons rooted in dasein, and the part where scientists, philosophers and ethicists attempt to discover what all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to do when confronted with bugs in any particular context.
As for other “versions” of ourselves, the multiverse is yet another one of those conundrums that science and philosophy have barely scratched the surface regarding.
For example, given this:
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
And this:
“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”
Yes, the part that, in regard to stepping on bugs for any number of personal reasons, is, in my opinion, rooted in dasein.
Yes, but how far removed is that for mere mortals from the total understanding and control that most attribute to God. Besides, how likely is the part where mere mortals either step or do not step on bugs going to factor into Judgment Day for them?
Who only knows that unequivocally If not God?
Huh? If the laws of physics were fully within our grasp, it could be calculated precisely. We just don’t know if that includes the brain ordering us – compelling us – to release the ball. Or, sure, whether or not there is a bug on the lane that the ball [or our shoe] might squash to smithereens.
I read your posts and I have no interest in responding. For various reasons.
I gave you a short form explanation of why you should not be expecting a reply. I could have just gone silent but I decided to say something as an ending. It wasn’t a retort.
I’m not trying to be flattering, but your concepts are fascinating to me. Did you know that some people believe that once you accept the revelation that you don’t have free will, that you gain free will from that point on? They see it sort of like gaining self-awareness for the first time, by acknowledging your lack of awareness, your lack of ability freely influence things. Somehow, you have more agency through that revelation. I feel like the idea is missing internal logical, but it’s interesting all the same.
Even then they could only partially explain any behavioral motivations, at least if we are assuming the framework in question. As you state:
Hmm… If someone chooses to perform an action, it must be meaningful, you say? Hmm… tell me, what does it signify when someone puts their pants on their left leg first vs. right leg first, or switches between? What does it signify if someone puts water then toothpaste on their toothbrush vs toothpaste then water? What does it signify if someone trims their right fingernails before their fingernails? There are such things at choices are not meaningful or consequential.
Activity I could have done instead? You make it sound like people are constantly running some sort of computerized cost benefit-analysis so that each action is preplanned and well calculated. If you think so, you’re very wrong. Some actions are spontaneous, irrational, and pointless. The decision to skim a rock across a lake isn’t “meaningful or consequential.” It’s pointless act of idle boredom.
That’s not fair; I didn’t read the emoji.
That is false parallel that might even be dishonest. In the case of a child wanting to kill squirrels, my concern would not be “why is he choosing this activity over others.” It would be, why the hell is killing a squirrel at all? That actually would be cruel, unlike mindlessly stepping on non-sentient ants. Your concern of making a “slight extra effort to kill something” (your words) would not be on my radar. It wouldn’t matter how much effort it took for him, how much energy it expended, or what other “activities” were turned down. You’re fixated on this ridiculous economy of time and effort and missed activities, when YOU are missing the boat by not appreciating why killing a squirrel is messed up. Hint: it has nothing to do with any of the nonsense you mentioned.
When someone kill a squirrel, there is DEFINITELY a reason behind it. Killing a squirrel takes a certain type of nerve and morbidity, a lack of empathy, and a disregard for another animal’s pain. Stepping on bugs, on the other hand, is business as usual. They don’t experience those things.
Notice your examples: In both cases the person in question ends up with the same results. The SAME results. They want to get their pants on and they do. And so with the others. So your examples
are
not
related
to
what
we
are talking
about.
In your example you repeat a behavior of killing bugs when you could do something else. You could kill them or not. Most people do not kill bugs ‘for no reason.’ They do it accidentally by walking and stepping on them or they kill them for a reason. We have given reasons: pests in the house, pests on food, etc. You do it ‘for no reason’ which means the bugs are not causing you pain (bites) potentially messing up your food, keeping you awake and so on.
I am asking you why you do this.
I like skipping rocks across a lake because it requires some skill, which I got better at, even as a child. I like the way it looks. I like the challenge. I can, unlike you, admit that I like doing it. It is a choice based on what I prefer doing in that moment.
I can take some responsibility for choosing to do it. For you it is a spontaneous impulse out of nowhere, random, not connected to your likes and dislikes, like a tick or a spasm.
You present a straw man argument above I did not make. Put words in my mouth. Cost benefit analyses…etc.
Earlier give the example of the cars, and I point out that you have not yet done what people do when they choose the color of their cars. I specifically said they would say they like a certain color more than another. It is a choice with consequences they like. You can’t manage to do what the people would do IN YOUR OWN EXAMPLE. When this is pointed out, you admit nothing.
Then you give the examples above that are not analogous to your choice to kill bugs because the results are different. And now you can’t even imagine or present yourself as not being able to imagine why someone would choose to skip rocks. It’s a spontaneous random reaction like someone saying fuck when they have Tourette’s.
Here’s a solution for you with your problem.
Think of the disliking of people who dislike people who step on bugs as being like your stepping on bugs. You step on bugs for no reason at all. They dislike you for as a spontaneous reaction. A tick.
So if you dislike them for disliking you, you’re a hypocrite, but the great thing is you can change. They’re being irrational and spontaneous in disliking you. Try to accept them as you expect them to accept you. You can be the Jesus of bug killers, actually accepting others for their irrational reactions just as YOU expect them to accept you for yours. Re-read your posts and find the whine in there. Then see if you are living up to your own whining about others.
Compared to those people, it took me alittle more time to dislike you. They saved time compared to me. They were spontaneous and irrational I came at my disliking you rationally. Through finding you to be a disingenous discussion partner. But you won’t experience me anymore so, it won’t be a problem for you.
People who kill squirrels can say that none of that really matters.
They draw the line differentiating what can be killed without concern, in a different place than you do.
People who object to the killing of bugs draw the line based on another criteria. Probably based on the principle that no living creatures ought to be killed. Or killed for food. Or only killed to protect oneself.
=D> 
