[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 33 KB, 764x645, 35dffxl5qhl11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14117450 No.14117450 [Reply] [Original]

Who are philosophers that discuss veganism?

>> No.14117484
File: 419 KB, 605x806, IMG_20191105_145209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14117484

Holy shit, stop making threads about veganism. I'm eating meat right now; try and stop me.

>> No.14117489

>>14117450
stop making threads

>> No.14117494

Give me one (1) reason to give a shit about chickens

>> No.14117506

>>14117494
They have feelings and are sentient. Plus there are some excellent chicken alternatives that taste just as good

t. former meat eater since 2 yrs ago

>> No.14117509

>>14117450
Interestingly enough, there's a lot of early philosophers who had something to say about veganism whether or not they were vegan is mostly impossible to say.

Pythagoras (570-490 BC) – For as long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.

>> No.14117514

>>14117484
>>14117489
This is /lit/. Is veganism really where you guys draw the line? Where are you guys when all the other filth floods the board. Discussions of incelism, racism, Twitter and so on that have no literary discussion within them. This off-topic post isn't even 1/10th as bad as the other ones.

>> No.14117524

>>14117450
Schopenhauer on animal rights.

>> No.14117534

>>14117450
Leo Tolstoy

>> No.14117550

Even though he never implemented it, DFW’s essay Consider the Lobster does go into the inhumane factory processed animal slaughter and about our disconnect to that because it tastes good.

>> No.14117559
File: 55 KB, 1200x630, 6396542._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14117559

>> No.14117565

>>14117450
Can you fuck off already?

>> No.14117573

>>14117494
They're thinking, feeling beings. There's a strong utilitarian argument for not eating them.

>>14117450
Ethical vegetarianism > veganism. I had scrambled eggs for breakfast (but they were free range).

>> No.14117581
File: 13 KB, 166x304, 1551932193492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14117581

>be Upton Sinclair
>wants to promote unions and workers writes
>writes novel portraying plight of immigrant slaughterhouse employee who gets mangled in canning factory
tfw public doesn't give a shit about immigrant workers but goes off meat to avoid possibily eating their missing fingers.

>> No.14117644

>>14117573
Free range is the same conditions as other factory farming establishments but in open air (still has a ceiling). Living from birth to death covered in each other's shit and dead bodies of those unable to cope with the genetic alterations of changing their weight for more meat. It's truly horrible.

>> No.14117657

>>14117581
You don't know the values of every vegan on earth. Many vegans fight for human rights as they do for animal rights. Your personal experience of what you have encountered does not equate to reality.

>> No.14117667

>>14117450
Plato (428-347 BC) – The Gods created certain kinds of beings to replenish our bodies; they are the trees and the plants and the seeds.

>> No.14117670

>>14117450
Plutarch (46-120): A human body in no way resembles those that were born for ravenousness; it hath no hawk’s bill, no sharp talon, no roughness of teeth, no such strength of stomach or heat of digestion, as can be sufficient to convert or alter such heavy and fleshy fare . . . There is nobody that is willing to eat even a lifeless and a dead thing even as it is; so they boil it, and roast it, and alter it by fire and medicines, as it were, changing and quenching the slaughtered gore with thousands of sweet sauces, that the palate being thereby deceived may admit of such uncouth fare.

>> No.14117674

>>14117644
"Free range" can mean different things. Some packages have labels on them that certify that it's been independently verified that their chickens live outside on actual pastures all the time. Those packages are typically much more expensive obviously, but you can find them on decent sales, sometimes less than $5 for a dozen.

>> No.14117676

>>14117644
womp womp

>> No.14117681

>>14117667
>ridiculous fallacious argument
Cringe.

>> No.14117777

>>14117674
I hear you but nearly 99% of meat produced is in horrible standards I like I was saying earlier. Not many people have a problem with them being raised in a true free range environment.

>> No.14117819

>>14117450
Voltaire (1694-1778) – How pitiful, and what poverty of mind, to have said that the animals are machines deprived of understanding and feeling . . . Judge (in the same way as you would judge your own) the behaviour of a dog who has lost his master, who has searched for him in the road barking miserably, who has come back to the house restless and anxious, who has run upstairs and down, from room to room, and who has found the beloved master at last in his study, and then shown his joy by barks, bounds and caresses. There are some barbarians who will take this dog, that so greatly excels man in capacity for friendship, who will nail him to a table, and dissect him alive, in order to show you his veins and nerves. And what you then discover in him are all the same organs of sensation that you have in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel? Has he nerves that he may be incapable of suffering?

>> No.14117824

>>14117450
Kant

>> No.14117865

>>14117450
Pythagoras
Empedocles
Porphyry
Plutarch
Jerome
Buddha
Mahavira

Is there a more easily infuriated species of cumbrain than the meat eater?

>> No.14117928

>>14117450
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties . . . The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery.

>> No.14117938

>>14117450
Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) – Love animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled. Do not trouble their joy, don’t harass them, don’t deprive them of their happiness, don’t work against God’s intent. Man, do not pride yourself on superiority to animals; they are without sin, and you, with your greatness, defile the earth by your appearance on it, and leave the traces of your foulness after you – alas, it is true of almost every one of us!

>> No.14118217

>>14117450
Hippocrates (460-370 BC) – The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body of each is different.

>> No.14118237

>>14117450
Meat reductionism > veganism. The solution to factory farming isn't veganism, it's the banning of factory farming.

>> No.14118245

>>14117506
Chickens don't have feelings, they have nociceptive refelxes.

>> No.14118261

>>14117644
Have you actually visited a free range chicken farm? They live good lives. Having raised chickens myself I can attest to it.

>> No.14118276

My earliest memory is opening my eyes as an infant. I remember what was happening and my mother's confirmed the details. I know for a fact it's possible to be aware without an articulate self-concept. Animals are like this.

There's such a depth to things that carnie cumbrains will never know. I pray for ecological collapse so we pay for the misery we have inflicted upon the earth

>> No.14118277

Florenskyi

>> No.14118290

>>14118237
Ban factory farming and you cant provide meat for anyone lol. It's like your brain can't comprehend scales.

>> No.14118303

>>14118290
People can just eat LESS meat like they've already done for tens of thousands of years. Dumb fucking vegan.

>> No.14118310

>>14118290
That's the point.

>> No.14118332

>>14117450
Stay vegan, fren. It's a good thing.
Dunno why all these people itt are butthurt, probably low-key guilt.
Anyway, I'm not vegan myself, but if vegan food was more accessible, I would for sure cut down meat to max. once a week. Think is, literally no restaurant near me sells vegan food for the same prices as food with meat. It's about twice as expensive actually, and I don't want to spend time cooking.

Anyway, sorry for not actually answering your question, just wanted to show respect.
There is absolutely no excuse for what we do to animals today.
Maybe insect nutrition could be the meat of tomorrow, imagine crickets mixed with spinach, sounds delicious.

>> No.14118337

>>14118276
>toddlers are like wild beasts

>> No.14118347

>>14117484
>>14117489
>>14117494
>>14117565
Why do otherwise intelligent people have such knee-jerk reactions to suggestions of veganism? Are we so tribalistic that we must consider any questioning of our routines an attack on our very selves? These past few days veganism threads have been 20% discussion and 80% violent overreactions. Why is this?

>> No.14118350

>>14118276
This is just a grand metaphysical speculation that implies a solution to the hard problem of consciousness.

>> No.14118356

>>14118347
Because it's off topic.

>> No.14118371

>>14118350
Keep playing language games in a closet

>> No.14118391

>>14118371
This isn't a language game though. You literally don't know what it's like to be a chicken or whatever. Their subjective experience will remain forever obscure.

>> No.14118407

>>14118391
The point is that they have one

>> No.14118418

>>14118337
They are before a certain age, but they are capable of depeloping consciousness.

>> No.14118419

>>14118407
Which is just a grand metaphysical speculation. How do you know this?

>> No.14118427

>>14117450
jeremy bentham. the question is not can they talk or can they think but can they suffer or something like that.

>> No.14118440

>>14118419
Whats self-evident to someone like me is grand metaphysical speculation to you. How did it get so bad?

They are living things with nervous system.

>> No.14118447

>>14118418
Thankfully I have always been a homo sapiens.

>> No.14118463

>>14118440
It's not self-evident at all. Humans are the only animals that exhibit third-order attention, symbolic language and culture. Analogous nervous structures prove nothing but the conservative nature of evolution.

>> No.14118475

>>14118463
It's a living thing that suffers when I stick a fucking blade in its neck, exercise your precious third-order cognition and realize that

>> No.14118489

>>14118475
Why do vegans always resort to these emotional appeals? We don't know whether it "suffers". It could simply be exhibiting a nociceptive reflex. Do you think bivalaves suffer and feel sad when cut in half?

>> No.14118505

>>14118489
Shut the fuck up nerd

>> No.14118522

>>14118440
>>14118463
>>14118475
>>14118489
>>14118505
This is what happens when a vegan is confronted with a learned meat-eater.

>> No.14118546

just lurking, but the omnivores seem to be winning this debate so far

>> No.14118548

>>14118489
Stop bifurcating nature.

>> No.14118577
File: 904 KB, 1244x794, 1569713743889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14118577

>>14118489
Cartesianism was a mistake

>> No.14118611

>>14118548
>>14118577
Humans exhibit symbolic language and third order attention and other animals don't. This is just a fact, one that has functional ramifications. Whitehead would've known this if he took Peirce more seriously.

>> No.14118622

>>14118611
The point is, in your anthropocentric view, you see other beings as automata denying them any aesthetic modes of experience. Sure, they don't experience human consciousness as it is distinctively human, however they are beings that still experience the world through their own unique properties.

>> No.14118639
File: 93 KB, 1280x720, lmao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14118639

>>14118489
Lmao just eat people nigga. When someone complains about pain, they're just lying and reacting with nociceptive reflex.

>> No.14118650

I've been contemplating leaving /lit/ for a while because people here are significantly dummer than they used to be.

The fact that none mentioned Peter Singer yet is absolutely disappointing lit.

>> No.14118658

>>14118650
Anarchist Veganism>>>>>>>>>Utilitarian Veganism

>> No.14118662

Chickens are meat robots, they will peck each other to death if one of the gets a small wound because they just sense food. Stop projecting human feelings onto lesser life forms.
Also plants have a form of sentience we are only starting to understand, so you vegans will probably have to start eating rocks or something soon lmao

>> No.14118675

>>14118662
Right, it doesn't matter what you eat. Ultimately the only ethical way to obtain nutrition is to literally inject our cells with chloroplast and photosynthesize.

>> No.14118696

>>14118662
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1309

>> No.14118699

>>14118622
You've actually got it completely backwards. I believe there exist *qualitative* differences between the modes of experience of different animals, *becuase* humans hold these exceptional qualities (like symbolic language). That is, the modes of experience of humans and non-humans and are incommensurable. Claiming that a chicken suffers, for example, is the projection of these uniquely human qualities onto the chicken, an attempt to anthropomorphise it, an attempt to fit it into the human paradigm.

>> No.14118719

>>14118699
>>14118696

>> No.14118731

>>14118699
Almost there, but not quite. It's not these abstract qualities that define the phenomenal experiences, but the substrates that creates these experiences. Chickens and humans experience pain through firing in the nervous system being received by the CNS. There is no reason to think that it's any different in chicken.

>> No.14118752

>>14118719
Yes I'm familiar with Whitehead's position. He's subject to the same critiques presented above. In many ways Whitehead and the like are the ultimate anthropmorphic thinkers; universalising the human experience, seeing it in everything and everything in it, erasing all difference bar quantity. I on the other hand am a humble anthropomorphist; understanding my inability to escape from the human and recognizing these real differences and their functional ramifications.

>> No.14118755

>>14118699
Panexperientialism necessitates veganism. Everything has a prehensive center. An inside corresponding to its outside. The body is just a token of participation in a world. human beings are superior only along the axis of reflexion, incommensurate =/= inferior

>> No.14118775

>>14118731
You're far from the mark. The only thing that anolgous neuronal structures and processes demonstrate is that evolution is a conservative process; it does not speak to experience itself. Why not make this same argument by anology with other aspects of animals? Why not capacity for symbolic language or culture? I think we all know why.

>> No.14118782

>>14118752
Did you even read the article

>> No.14118790

>>14118731
Whitehead generalizes experientiality, not sentiment/affect, ie suffering as a narrativization of pain stimulus. Read

>> No.14118800

>>14118755
Yes that's one metpahysical postion. I'm not a panexperientialist though; I dont tyrannise other beings with human conceptualizations of experience. I agree with "incommensurate =/= inferior"; that was my entire point. This doesn't naturally imply veganism, however.

>> No.14118809

>>14118800
Reread this
>>14118696
and this
>>14118577
because you are mischaracterizing

>> No.14118816

>>14118782
If you think I've misinterpreted it, please express how in your own words.

>> No.14118826

>>14118809
Please express your misgivings in your own words; interpretation is a real phenomenom.

>> No.14118827

>>14118800
No it seems you are. If you believe empathy always has to be anthropomorphizing

>> No.14118842

>>14118827
Self-consciousness is a subset of a more general category of creativity in nature, it's not the way around - animals are steps to metacognition, etc.

The possibilities for cognition are heterogenous and radically irreducible

>> No.14118846

>>14118827
Human-mediated empathy is NECESSARILY anthropomorphising. It's modelled on human interactions.

>> No.14118861

>>14118775
What? It does speak to experience itself. The biological cause of suffering is the only thing that matters for the experience of suffering. The capacity of symbolic language or culture have no bearing for the biology of suffering.

>> No.14118868

>>14118826
The article literally says
>I don’t think that Whitehead is being anthropomorphic at all: rather, he is inverting the direction of anthropomorphic projections. For Whitehead, human feelings are in fact the exemplification, within our own experience, of a broader kind of process that is far more widely distributed among entities in the world. I cannot remember who first said this, but Whitehead’s actual procedure is – far from attributing human qualities to other organisms –to try to find more general processes, of which the human version that we are familiar with is just one, not necessarily privileged, example. Whitehead’s procedure is actually what Charles Sanders Peirce calls abduction.

>> No.14118879

>>14118846
Only the empathy that gets this is properly non-human. You got a long way to go friend

>> No.14118881

>>14118842
"Self-consciousness" and "creativity" as defined by humans and contained within the uniquely human phenomenon of symbolic language. Both of these are categories of symbolic language.

>> No.14118895

>>14118861
You're unexaminedly linking neuronal processes with subjective experience.

>> No.14118909

>>14118881
I don't suppose your interpretation of symbolic language transcends symbolic language now does it , we're just going in circles

>> No.14118915

>>14118868
Yes, I'm critiquing this characterization of Whitehead. He universalises using uniquely human categories.
>>14118879
>he said, from within symbolic language
And you've got even further to go.

>> No.14118925

>>14118895
Yes, that's the biology of subjective experience. Now, why wouldn't chicken's neuronal processes also procedure a subjective experience as well?

>> No.14118939

>>14118909
It doesn't need to/cannot. It's the most primordial tautology that can be generated. It just means that its nature informs everything we do and know.

>> No.14118943

>>14118915
You're being anthropomorphic precisely when you believe it's impossible to get outside it.

>> No.14118948

>>14118489
I don’t and can’t know if you suffer either faggot

>> No.14118949

>>14118925
For the same reason why chickens don't engage in religion, art, economics, build cities etc etc.

>> No.14118967

>>14118949
So culture always has to proceed from subjective experience. So when do children transition from unconsciousness into consciousness?

>> No.14118968

>>14118943
Yes, it's a minimal anthropomorphism. You're being maximally anthropomorphic when you claim everything/nothing is human, from within uniquely human categories.

>> No.14118970

>>14118949
Incapacity to do something doesn't mean that it doesn't have experience. People with down syndrome can't do things, yet it would be very difficult to argue that they have no experience at all.

>> No.14118977

>>14118967
No, culture stems from symbolic sign systems.

>> No.14118981

>>14118970
I never claimed that. Culture is just the functional ramification of a qualitatively different mode of experience.

>> No.14118991

Hello culture mongoloids explain the non-existence of complex language and culture among wary anatomically modern humans

>> No.14118995

>>14118991
*early anatomically modern humans

>> No.14119008

>>14118991
If it's not using symbolic language then it's not human.

>> No.14119011

>>14118915
You are mistaking the self-evident reality of consciousness for a self-grounding substance. the transcendental facts of cognition are not enough to "authorize" cognition as the author of nature. The mind is emergent within a larger totality: nature. More to the point, it's an extremely complex output of that field, but again, just one output out of many, human consciousness doesn't have ontological priority over the "prehensive centers" of simpler organisms.

>> No.14119040

>>14119011
I DON'T think consciousness is a "self-grounding substance" though. If anything it is symbolic language, of which ALL conceptualizations of everything are contained within; consciousness, nature, prehensive centres, everything. The nature of symbolic nature informs the nature of these constructions

>> No.14119045

>Whiteheadanon vs Guenonfag in a vegan thread
/lit/ everybody

>> No.14119047

>>14119040
nature of symbolic language*

>> No.14119093

>>14119040
because you're a degenerate/spinozist peircean and everything we need to purge from S-SOCIETY today

>> No.14119122

>>14119093
Lmao. GAY Whiteheadian vegans getting mogged by based Peircean omnivore anon

>> No.14119132

>>14118968
Either you have access to non-human perspectives or you don't, there's no gradient

>> No.14119145

>>14119122
Bet you a c-note you didn't know he was peircean til I mentioned it pseud nigger

>> No.14119180

>>14119132
If you read closely you'll notice that I never claimed otherwise.

>> No.14119199

>>14119180
Then theres no question of minimal or maximal anthropomorphism. Either a circles a circle or it isn't

>> No.14119207

>>14119199
Some things are more circular than other things.

>> No.14119213

>>14119207
Your problem is your axis is inverted

>> No.14119214

>>14118968
I'm not being anthropomorphic. I am claiming that the human mind is simply a part of the prehensive unity. You are going full anthropocentric giving ontological priority to the human mind by closing it off from the rest of nature.

>> No.14119229

Reminder that the animal kingdom regularly deploys interspecies communication of signs signifying aggression, pain, submission, etc. and that while it is true that a human cannot properly conceive of what it is “to be” a bat there is sufficient reason to believe that the qualia other animals experience are, if not the same, yet similar to our own.

>> No.14119253

>>14119213
Elaborate so I can comment.
>>14119214
You're extending the domain of symbolic constructions like "mind" and "prehensivity" to all of nature. I recognise the qualitative distinctions between humans and non-humans and confine these constructions to the symbolic domain, retaining the mystery and animism of the non-symbolic world.

>> No.14119262

>>14119229
Sign interactions occur between the animate and inanimate worlds too. These are all INDEXICAL signs though.

>> No.14119263

>>14119253
I am not extending mind to all of nature I'm not a panpsychist. I am claiming that there is a mode of experience within everything.

>> No.14119270

>>14119253
You can preserve that mystery without denying the possibility that these creatures experience actual distress. Either you're a fucking demon or a galaxy brain

>> No.14119276

>>14119263
>I am claiming that there is a mode of experience within everything
So am I. Only that they're incommensurate though.

>> No.14119285

>>14119263
>>14119253
All you are simply doing is locking yourself within representation.

>> No.14119292

>>14119263
>mind
>mode of experience
What's the difference

>> No.14119302

Buddhism I guess. There's the whole thing about how they endeavour not to harm any living creature other than plants (where necessary) because fuck plants bro. There was something about how they wouldn't travel in the rain because they didn't want to tread on bugs.

I don't give a shit about bugs or fish, they don't feel pain. If they are sustainably and ethically farmed (i.e. you don't beat dolphins to death when you pull the fish aboard) then anyone who contests it should also contest the consumption of plants and mushrooms. I plan to switch to a mostly plant based diet eventually, but only because meat isn't that healthy, especially not with all the hormones and anti-biotics.

I hate a lot of vegans because they always assume that other people care about cute doggos as much as they do, and they say "you can't eat dog, it so cute. You can't eat cow, cow living". I don't care about other things, I lack empathy for the most part. My decision to reduce meat intake will be a purely selfish one. My quest for knowledge and my aims to attain a better understanding of the world are selfish, and although I may do good by teaching what I know, it is ultimately betters me, otherwise I would not do it. But I do not believe I am that different from most people who cease to eat animals. They fear the guilt and shame of eating a living creature, and so in turn, their veganism is still a selfish drive to avert pain, just that their pain supposedly comes from a more noble place.

On the whole, however, I have few quarrels with vegans. They are happy to share their recipes in the hopes they may save an animal's life, and I cannot be mad at one for wishing to share reliable knowledge for free to those seeking it, regardless of their motives. It is just a shame that so few vegans have good recipes to share.

>> No.14119314

>>14119270
I don't preclude that possibility. I don't preclude others either.
>>14119285
I didn't imprison ourselves in representation. Nevertheless we are, so we should probably elucidate it's nature to the best of our ability.

>> No.14119318

>>14119292

Only one cognizable to the human mind itself, because it makes it the human mind. You have to go deeper. Animal qualia are incommensurate and not. Pain is their radical token of participation in the world

>> No.14119322

>>14119292
see
>>14118696
>>14118577

>> No.14119332

>>14119302
>They fear the guilt and shame of eating a living creature, and so in turn

Not everything is motivated by fear

>> No.14119334

>>14119314
so you are indeed guilty of this
>>14119011

>> No.14119343

>>14119314
You aren't a Peircean you are just a crypto Kantian lol

>> No.14119346

>>14119334
No. Read my response to that.

>> No.14119348

>>14117674
Certified Humane is the only label that means anything afaik.

I only eat meat that I hunted or fished.

Just finished eating some Massaman Tofu Curry I made. Pretty fucking dank.

>> No.14119354

>>14119314
Animism is compatible with decoupling pain from suffering, which is what Whitehead is doing.

>> No.14119361

>>14119343
Lol read Peirce dummy

>> No.14119369

>>14117450
Schopenhauer says “Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”

>> No.14119395
File: 385 KB, 1600x1005, BC1D72FE-42F2-42EE-B9E6-66A253CA2131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14119395

Savitri Devi, both Vegan and a National Socialist. Her book is by far the best thing I’ve ever read on Veganism. It’s a must read for any Vegan, even if you’re not interested in some of the far right aspects of this book you’ll get a lot out of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

http://www.mourningtheancient.com/impeachment.pdf

>>14117573
>free range
>pic related
How ethical of you.

>> No.14119398
File: 7 KB, 225x225, images (43).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14119398

World presupposes cognition. Not the other way around. Reflexion is one mode of input within a heterogenous totality

>> No.14119406

>>14119398
All of which are contained within uniquely human symbolic sign systems.

>> No.14119409

>>14119262
>I categorize these interactions as this rather that more of the same because I refuse to accept that animals can suffer.

>> No.14119419

>>14119406
Which don't exhaust the (non-)totality by description. Welcome to the mystery faggot

>> No.14119421

>>14119346
There are two direct modes of perception that, when integrated, result in consciousness. One mode brings the world around us into our psyche; this is how everything looks in the present. It is sharp and clear, the basis for analysis, measurement. It also is detached from what is being perceived. The other mode is vague yet the source of all meaning. This mode brings the subjective experience of the world around us, and within us, directly into our own subjectivity. In this mode, we experience the other as it has experienced itself, we feel the otherness as our own feeling, we feel shaped by all that comes to us. In much of life today, this second mode remains present yet unrecognized. It is the foundation of empathy and compassion, attitudes that appear to be sorely lacking in much of today's world. The other mode, if the servant of the this mode, can help us plan what is needed to improve relations within humankind and the natural world. But, when it is the dominant mode, then it becomes easy to treat others as things to be used to reach desired goals.

>> No.14119432

>>14119409
Dumb emtionally driven strawman. Par for the course for vegans

>> No.14119443

>>14119419
Functionally and pragmatically, it does. We're only looking at this mystery through a loupe; no microscopes allowed bitch.

>> No.14119444

>>14119432
sometimes its ok get mad

>> No.14119449

>>14119443
Phenomenologically, physiologically, it doesn't, and I hope autism dies with Zion

>> No.14119456

>>14119421
Very cool metaphysical constructions that are contained within symbolic language.

>> No.14119468

>>14119045
I've never heard any of these types of arguments before but it sounds intriguing, is this stuff worth reading into?

>> No.14119483

>>14119444
Me or the Whiteheadian vegan?
>>14119449
Langauge preceded phenomenology and physiology. Understand the functional ramifications

>> No.14119491

>>14119483
>Langauge preceded phenomenology and physiology.

Hard sell. Besides, animals communicate with each other. Back to the gradient problem.

>> No.14119503

>>14119491
Animals DO NOT employ symbolic sign systems. Only humans.
>>14119468
Read the "Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce" and "The Origins of Language" by Eric Gans.

>> No.14119515

>>14119456
Metaphysical constructions are just built upon experience which precedes symbolic language.

>> No.14119524

>>14119503
Human semantics are strictly human. You still don't get it

>> No.14119542

>>14119515
Lmao. Go ahead and articulate an experience (or even experience as such) unmediated by language. Good luck bro

>> No.14119550

>>14119542
Articulation isn't a prerequisite for experience dumbass.

>> No.14119551

>>14119040
>>14119346
Whitehead believes experience to be derived of three different modes. Two of these modes combine into one final mode, termed "symbolic reference". His work Symbolism is to describe symbolic reference. He says, "It is the thesis of this work that human symbolism has its origin in the symbolic interplay between two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world." The Kantian element of Whitehead can be seen in his epistemology. While the nature of the world can be construed in many analytical ways, Whitehead believes that we know nothing but the empirical world and his metaphysical ultimates. Any interpretation of sense-experience must arise from the present and from the empirical world. In this way, history must presuppose a metaphysic. However, it does not seem that Whitehead is entirely an empiricist, though that is where the brunt of his epistemological stance lies. For example, because an occasion is related to the world, to God and to the forms, it has access, in a sense, to these forms or eternal objects/receptacle, which are given by God and sorted for relevance to the occasion in question.
To get an adequate account of human mentality means several things must be examined. First, how one can know correctly. Secondly, how one can be wrong, and lastly how we distinguish truth from error. Whitehead believes there is a type of mental functioning that automatically reveals knowledge of a fact. Another type of mental functioning relies on this indubitable functioning and is fallible. This type of functioning is only trustworthy by reason of its satisfaction of certain criteria provided by the first type of functioning. Whitehead calls the first type "Direct Recognition" and the second type "Symbolic Reference."

>> No.14119554

>>14119524
No, I do get it. It's what I've been saying all along. All we can know are the functional ramifications of these sign systems (as mediated by The Human).

>> No.14119555

>>14119542
Dreams

>> No.14119573

>>14119550
Bahahaha, it LITERALLY is. Now don't you go and hit me with the
>but muh babies!
because you'll get btfo

>> No.14119580

>>14119555
are mediated by signs.

>> No.14119582

>>14119554
No you don't get it. Sense has priority cognition in Whiteheads naturalism. nature just is the production of closures, united by sensitive participation

>> No.14119589

>>14119580
Which are non-linguistic, which you deny to animals because ________

>> No.14119596

>>14119346
>>14119551
Whitehead defines symbolism in terms of how the brain is functioning. He writes, "The human mind is functioning symbolically when some components of its experience elicit consciousness, beliefs, emotions, and usages, respecting other components of its experience. The former set of components are the `symbols', and the latter set constitute the `meaning' of symbols". Direct experience elicits some type of response by the organism and the organism uses the symbols (objects, words, etc) from the initial direct experience to apply to other areas of its experience. He terms this transition of symbol to meaning "Symbolic Reference". Symbolic reference requires a relationship between the symbol and meaning. It cannot be arbitrary. It requires common ground that cannot be expressed without reference to the perfected percipient and the active synthetic activity of the occasion in question. While the relationship between symbol and meaning cannot be arbitrary, there are also no such things as natural symbols - symbols that would function as natural, universal symbols. There are no components of experience which are symbols or only meanings. This symbolic reference is a kind of two-way street for Whitehead. For example, in using language, symbols are used in a kind of double fashion: from things to words on the part of the speaker, and from words back to things on the part of the listener.
Experience, for Whitehead, is not something passive. It is active; it is something that is done by the occasion. Symbolic Reference is something that must be done by an active agent. There must be an active synthetic element. This active synthetic element, or activity of an occasion arises because of the nature of the occasion. Since an actual occasion is an always becoming, concrescing event, the activity of an occasion in perception is, in a sense, self-creating. This active synthetic part played by the occasion is reminiscent of Kant and the categories. For Kant, the categories play an active role in how we experience the world. There is something similar in Whitehead. He writes, "the colour and the spatial perspective are abstract elements, characterizing the concrete way in which the wall enters into our experience". It is an abstraction that makes the object appear as an `
other.'
The fundamental, ontological relationship is already in the experience. One occasion or group of occasion experiences another group of occasions and abstracts extension and color from the other set. But the reality is that this other set is simply another group of occasions, perishing and becoming as the first group is perishing and becoming. For one society to perceive another society in this way means that the perceiving society must deny or discard the fundamental relationship between both societies or occasions. In the sense that all occasions are connected by this relationship, nothing happens independently of anything else.

>> No.14119618

>>14119596
>>14119346
However, because of this type of perception and abstraction, it seems that things really are independent of one another. In this sense, contemporary events happen independently. He terms this mode of experience "Presentational Immediacy." Presentational immediacy expresses how things are related to one another and at the same time, seem to preserve a mutual independence.
Whitehead listed three main facts about presentational immediacy. First the sense-data involved depend on the percipient organism and its spatial relations to the perceived organisms. Secondly, the world one sees appears to be extended and full of things. Lastly he said that presentational immediacy is only present in higher level organisms. So, this image of extension always accompanies presentational immediacy. They are bound together. The reality of extension and spatial things is only appearance. Whitehead writes, "In this appearance the world discloses itself to be a community of actual things, which are actual in the same sense as we are." The medium through which this happens is what are generally termed qualities. These qualities may or may not be a part of the actual world as they can with equal truth be described as our sensations or as the qualities of the actual things which we perceive. Qualities themselves are relational between the perceiving subject and the perceived things. One must abstract qualities from subjects themselves. Extension is the scheme of the morphology of the complex organisms forming the community of the contemporary world. All of this means that sense-data introduces the extended physical entities into our experience under perspectives provided by this spatial scheme. Presentational immediacy is something that is somewhat controllable by the person. At one moment in time a person experiences all kinds of emotions, feelings etc., that pick and choose such things to focus on. Differing emotions at various times affect the way one perceives things by presentational immediacy. There is a difference between the "thing" existing in its own right and the way it is perceived by presentational immediacy. Whitehead says,"presentational immediacy is the peculiar way in which contemporary things are `objectively' in our experience, and that among the abstract entities which constitute factors in the mode of introduction are those abstractions usually called sense-data." This objectification in presentational immediacy argues against the idea of a Cartesian world. The very objectification is an abstraction. This abstraction is nature's mode of interaction. The abstraction that is done means that the thought is conforming itself to nature. The abstraction and analysis have to be held together: Synthesis and analysis require each other.

>> No.14119627

>>14119573
How would feral children who grew up and learned language later in life express their experiences as feral children if it's not possible to have experience without articulation?

You're just plainly wrong.

>> No.14119646

>>14119346
>>14119618
Whitehead's particular ontology solves the problem of trying to synthesize various, unrelated substances. Because the fundamental level of reality is process or activity, an occasion's nature consists in its relevance to other things, and its individuality consists in its synthesis of other things so far as they are relevant to it.

The other mode of symbolic reference Whitehead calls Causal Efficacy. Hume attempted to lay a groundwork for a purely empiricist notion of knowledge of sense-data. However, in his system, there is no way to account for the present being anything similar to the past. This is shown in his doctrine of causation and other places. For Hume, time is just a succession of events, apparently unrelated to one another. The question of course, is how, on an empiricist framework, the empiricist can account for the present in terms of the past. Or to put it another way, "What does the present have in common with the past? "Whitehead saw this gap in Hume's epistemology and sought his remedy through the idea of causal efficacy. Whitehead said, "what is already given for experience can only be derived from that natural potentiality which shapes a particular experience" If there is no connection between the past and the present, then the present is all we have, and there is no basis for why anything remains the same, yet it always seems to. Presentational immediacy works in the realm of extension and causal efficacy works in the realm of time. The past occasions impose themselves upon the present: In the mode of causal efficacy they exhibit the almost instantaneously precedent bodily organs as imposing their characters on the experience in question. This is how one can be sure the present will resemble the past.

Presentational immediacy is something that happens within us. The abstraction involved takes place within the occasion. But causal efficacy is something that arisesfrom without us. He says, he causal efficacy from the past is at least one factor giving our presentational immediacy in the present. Putting these two modes together is what Whitehead called Symbolic Reference.He says, "The synthetic activity whereby these two modes are fused into one perception is what I have called `symbolic reference'" . In symbolic reference, all of the sense-data can be accounted for and put together: By symbolic reference the various actualities disclosed respectively by the two modes are either identified, or are at least correlated together as interrelated elements in our environment. In other words, symbolic reference shows us what is there. It is by the combination of these two modes that shows one what the actual world is for us

>> No.14119648

>>14119589
I DON'T deny signs to animals. Only symbols
>>14119627
You proved my point. The experience only exists after the capacity for symbolic language is acquired.

>> No.14119658

>>14119596
>>14119618
>>14119646
Whiteheadfag with his copy-pasted walls of text per usual

>> No.14119663

>>14119573
Before you said you dont deny modes of experience to other things now you say you do

>> No.14119675

>>14119648
Experience existed back then, it was just not articulated. When the person was able to articulate it, then it was articulated.
Your logic is: if experience is not articulated, then it does not exist. Then, feral children would have no experience until language is learned. It would be impossible to articulate any pre-language experience, because they do not exist.

>> No.14119692

>>14119663
We're obviously talking about experience as it is known by humans. It's problematic of us to even speak of "experience" in regard to other animals. It's just shorthand

>> No.14119704

>>14119692
2 atoms bumping into each other is an "experience."

>> No.14119711

>>14119658
It's on W's symbolic logic

>> No.14119722

>>14119675
>if experience is not articulated, then it does not exist
100% correct. Experience is a socially (i.e. symbolically/culturally) mediated phenomenom. No experience exists in a world of Roombas, unless another being were to exist in that world capable of articulating it. You may think that experience can be articulated to oneself. No. As the self is modelled on the other (via third order attention), both it and experience (and the other, and society) come into being simultaneously

>> No.14119727

>>14119704
Yes. But contained within a symbolic conceptualization of it

>> No.14119733

>>14119722
Explain how adult ex-feral children are able to recount their feral children experiences then.

>> No.14119749

>>14119722
>if experience is not articulated, then it does not exist
This is 100% retarded. Experience is absorbed within the larger totality of things. The human mind is simply one kind of funnel which articulates its experience and outputs it in its symbolic terms. Symbolic language does not come out of thin air. Experience precedes it.

>> No.14119751

>>14119733
I just did. By being integrated into a symbolic sign system

>> No.14119755

>>14117450
hitler was a vegan read mein kampf

>> No.14119764

>>14119749
Go ahead and present an experience outside of representation then. If im 100% retarded then you're 1000%

>> No.14119767

>>14119722
>As the self is modelled on the other (via third order attention), both it and experience (and the other, and society) come into being simultaneously
they're created ex nihilo?

>> No.14119770

>>14119751
No, if the experience does not exist, then it cannot be recalled and told. There would be nothing to be integrated into symbolic sign system because your logic says that there's nothing.

>> No.14119772

>>14119764
>go ahead and articulate an experience outside the terms of articulation gotcha faggot

Hitler was right

>> No.14119790

>>14119767
No. Paradoxically, rather.
>>14119770
You're hypostasizing "existence". There's no such thing as the pre-representational.

>> No.14119791

>>14119764
I can cut a brain and show you the experience in neural basis. I doubt that you can derive any symbolical meaning from that because you're too fucking stupid.

>> No.14119810

>>14119772
It's stupid, isn't it? We should probably figure out what symbolic language is then

>> No.14119815

>>14119791
Lmaooooo. An experience is not its physical susbtrate

>> No.14119828

>>14119722
>>14119751
>>14119790
Articulation and the articulated come to be at the same time, so I can't know what I'm articulating before I do in fact articulate it. I'm creating it, then?

>> No.14119864

>>14119828
Society is creating it, rather (you included). You're using the medium of society itself to represent it, thus it's subject to its whims. It's the reason why someone can say something and later (or on the spot) have their minds changed.

>> No.14119892

>>14119864
Society is a coordination of people or articulations who don't know what they're articulating? So we don't correct each other but change our minds and have them changed.

>> No.14119919

>>14119892
>who don't know what they're articulating
Who THINK they know what they're articulating.
>So we don't correct each other but change our minds and have them changed.
We may as well be correcting eachother. The mechanism of this correction however is impositional.

>> No.14120032

>>14119919
How can they but erroneously think they know what they're articulating if the articulation is created at the same time as what it articulates and is corrected by other articulations created similarly? How can there be anything "representational" if there is no "pre-representational" of any kind? What would the source of any change of mind be other than an individual, self-caused act of god?

>> No.14120067

>>14119815
Rofl. It is.

>> No.14120084

>>14120032
Because the individual can "practice" the articulation in their internal scene of representation, which is itself modelled on the external scene of representation i.e. society. The regress closes at the articulation of the representation, then re-opens.
What you've recognised in the second part of your comment is the fundemtnal paradox of signification; the sign represents its referent as *already* significant. The answer is that they paradoxically give rise to eachother. "Pre/post-representarional" are just shorthand.

>> No.14120090

>>14117506
what can i put in rice to replace chicken

>> No.14120095

>>14120084
fundamental* representational*
Sorry, phone posting

>> No.14120147

>>14120084
So Gans is just a linguistic idealist who should've stuck to literary criticism. I had suspicions. It's a non-starter by itself and for any theory of the political. How is a referent picked out by a sign, how are any signs different? Your signs represent nothing and so are not even signs.

>> No.14120214

>>14120147
No, he's not. Are you familar with the orginary scene and the modes of lanaguage?
>and for any theory of the political.
Well that's where Adam comes in.

>> No.14120361

>>14120214
I have some familiarity but every lower-order explanation or application repels me by its smug philosophical naivety and obviously pragmatic first principle of avoiding violence. I just took a look at this http://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw390/.. The existence of both referents and signifieds is not paradoxical. He is still not quite as stupid as you make him sound. The paradox comes because sacralization for him is pointing out while making inaccessible to appropriation, hence
>We cannot conceive, let alone access, a sacred referent that is not at the same time the sacred-referent-designated-by-the-sign

and this "event" also happens to be the origin of language for him. Then he engages in some sub-Derridean blather pretending to be above philosophy with his amazing "new way of thinking". Ironically I think Adam is the source of any value any of this might have. That doesn't mean it's a good use of time or effort.

>> No.14120505

>>14120361
It's not their existence that's paradoxical, but their coextensivity and codependence.
It doesn't "just happen" to be the origin of language, it is necessarily that way so that it addresses the contradictions in traditional, gradual accounts of the origin of language.
I don't disagree regarding "sub-Derridean" blather and the like. And he wonders why he was functionally excommunicated by the relevant disciplines.
>pragmatic first principle of avoiding violence
My, and many other's biggest hang-up with the hypothesis. Fortunately, it's not needed for it to function.

>> No.14120553

>>14118650
>dummer
Holy.

That said, yeah, Peter Singer you retards.

>> No.14120612

>>14120505
It seems to be the driving motivation for it to me.
A referent is not dependent on a signified: there is still the ostensive. I have enjoyed derailing an originally boring thread though. I still think a more fundamental approach is necessary than many are pursuing, which is not easy to do by oneself.

>> No.14120656

>>14117450
Veganism is antithetical to the needs of the human body.

>> No.14120680

>>14120612
What does? philosophical naivety? pragmatism?
I still don't see an escape from the paradox. A sign refers to an object, as referred to to by another (or the same) sign. The emission of the originary ostenisve provides the mechanism by which this occurs.
What do you consider a more fundamental approach?

>> No.14120730

>>14117450
this one philosopher faggot mccuck wrote a book about it called "loving animals and hating people: how to be your most hypocritical vegan"

>> No.14120771
File: 322 KB, 1854x1037, Screenshot_2019-11-01 lit - Literature - Page 8 - 4chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120771

>>14120680
The avoidance of violence.
I'm not seeing where the paradox is there. It doesn't seem like he's talking about a strict paradox because he doesn't seem to problematize ostensives in general. I guess he means there is always a residue of possibility of the signified, confusion is always a possibility. But I distrust his motives and he may be being deliberately sophistical by blowing this into something more quasi-Derridean. But he seems less concerned with "writing" and that. A sign doesn't obliterate or defer indefinitely our reference to an object. It enables it, which allows for confusion and misuse. I'm afraid I'm not French enough to wring my hands here. More fundamental I would consider pic related, for example. Though I'm not so Kant-sympathetic.

>> No.14120797

>>14120656
It isn't though. You can get all your nutritional needs in a vegan diet.

>> No.14120810

>>14120771
>pic rel
refer to
>>14119551
>>14119596
>>14119618
>>14119646

>> No.14120874

>>14120771
It's the prime motivator for Gans. As I said earlier though, it simply isn't needed. The OH is by design completely open to revision bar its originary nature.
If anything it is nega-Derridean. Gans overturns him completely in historicising différance. A signifying chain ends with an ostensive, and THE signifying chain ends forever with the orginary ostensive.
I'm skeptical as to your pic related. I'm afraid we're going to have to go through pomo rather than skirting around it (that means inheriting some of it). Synthesis is already occurring between Deleuze and Gans.

>> No.14120963
File: 620 KB, 1267x4129, d_t14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120963

>>14120874
I don't think I'm skirting anything. That doesn't mean you pick up whatever you find along the street. I find the Germans more impressive along with studying history and neglected opportunities along with my Nihilism. I enjoyed Chris's polemical detective work on his blog but I don't think he paid enough attention when he was criticized. Imperius at least has energy. I'm less interested in it now. Maybe our paths will cross.

>> No.14121026

>>14120963
Chris has long since deferred to Adam, who is without a doubt the intellectual leader of the group. Have you read his manuscript? And what movements if any are you interested in?

>> No.14121072

>>14117509
This

>> No.14121116

>>14121026
I recognize that. Wasn't aware of any manuscript. Movements, none, I'm focusing on people. I've had a desire to start a publication initially drawing together a few people trying new, fundamental, different things but who are not chasing attention and could benefit from knowing each other. The author of the posts I screenshotted a few posts back, some of the absolutist people, a blogger, some other posters. I have to try to resist the urge to consider myself always unready. As for the rest I have been frequenting Strauss, Schmitt, Rosen, Scheler, philologists and historians, platonists and magicians and nihilists.

>> No.14121213

>>14121116
Good stuff, anon. The manuscript is available on the server if you're interested.

>> No.14121280

>>14117506
tatse is irrelevant

I eat animal foods for nutrition and health - easily digestible and bioavailable (complete) proteins, fat soluble vitamins, minerals, elements and fatty acids.

sure you can eat some vegan frankenfood that may (((taste))) the same, but I don't eat just for sensations on my tongue.

>> No.14121313

>>14120797
You can't though. You need supplements, you can't do it with diet alone. That's why veganism is a rich people trend.

>> No.14121326

>>14120797
sure, as long as you take like 15 pills a day, and even then youll like and feel like you're dying

fruits, vegetables, seeds - is this really what the human body wants and needs?

>> No.14121409

>>14118356
How is religion more applicable than the philosophy of veganism?

>> No.14121420

>>14118489
Since there are enough grounds for doubt over whether chickens suffer or not, the solution is still to not risk causing it suffering, no?
And I find it extremely dishonest of meat eaters to lead with the chicken question. It implies you'd be willing to stop causing pain if only a chicken was more cognitively developed, yet you still eat pigs and cows, patently intelligent animals.

>> No.14121723

>>14121326
And whole grains yes. Like how do humans at all look like meat eaters? Do you eat your meat raw and uncooked? Adopting a vegan diet is nothing but positives as well. You dont need that many supplements. For stuff like b12 you can just eat fortified foods. Literally everything you buy is fortified by the way. Better for the environment. Better for your heart/blood work. And better for the animals who we have perpetuated a cycle of suffering for.

>> No.14121731

>>14121313
Vegan foods are cheap you just need to do your research on what to eat.

>> No.14121751 [DELETED] 

https://www.youtube.com/user/clarence0
Clarence takes no supplements and is strong as he'll and builds muscle without animal proteins.

>> No.14121756

>>14121280
It´s completly possible to survive and thrive on a vegan/vegetarian diet, anything else is just people refusing to see. You say you dont eat for sensations on the tongue, but that´s literally the only reason you eat meat. You don't need meat to survive or feel good.
Don't post the picture with fringe cases of malnourished vegans and think you won btw.

>> No.14121759

https://www.youtube.com/user/clarence0
Clarence takes no supplements and is strong as hell and builds muscle without animal proteins

>> No.14121760

>>14117494
they lay eggs and taste good btfo

>> No.14121769

>>14118245
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_in_chickens

>> No.14121775

>>14117865
This, my friend.
Reminder that the LORD gave us dominion over our animal friends, meaning we have a responsibility to protect and care for them (Genesis 1:26). Our societies are committing a genocide on our animal friends as we speak, for nothing more than human lusts for blood and flesh.
We must treat them with love and care, and never think to eat them. In fact, veganism and peace is the LORD's vision for creation (Isaiah 65:25).

>> No.14121780

>>14121769
Typical anthropomorphising.

>> No.14121795

>>14121775
What about eating bivalves? They're less sentient than most plants

>> No.14121802

>>14121795
What is your obsession with rending flesh and drinking blood?

>> No.14121803

>>14121780
?

>> No.14121807

>>14121775
>In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
Acts 10:12-13

>> No.14121809

>>14121795
bivalves don't even have blood lol

>> No.14121828

>>14121807
>"No, Lord!" Peter answered. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean. The voice spoke to him a second time: " Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and all at once the sheet was taken back up into heaven
Acts 10 14-15
These are the next verse. Peter does not eat the animals; this is an instruction to challenge the previous understandings that some animal friends were impure. It challenge the meat eater's hypocrisy that there are dirty animal friends (see 1 Timothy 4:4, Titus 1:15, and Luke 12:6). Notice how none of the animal friends in these verses are actually killed, nor does Peter actually eat any of them.
Silly carnist, read a little more please.

>> No.14121886
File: 82 KB, 1080x1012, 1560913822541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14121886

>Nooooooooo, you can't kill something which doesn't have a sense of self because uuuuh kill is bad

>> No.14121905

>>14121886
nooooo you can't make me question my crude unexamined anthropocentrism nooooo

>> No.14121924

>>14121905
Could you explain how it's wrong to kill something which doesn't have a sense of self?

>> No.14121927

>>14121802
What is your obsession with shitposting and virtue-signalling?

>> No.14121931

>>14120797
Vegans are deficit in B12:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/784788
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987

Vegans have weaker bones due to lower calcium intake and vitamin D3 levels:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092700

Vegans have a worse memory compared to non vegans due to creatine deficiency in vegans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118604
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14561278

Vegans have less gains compared to non vegans:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/6/1032.full

Vegans are deficient in omega 3s:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16188209
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323090

Vegans are deficit in carnitine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21753065
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1628441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11043928

Vegans are deficient in iodine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354

Vegans are deficient in iron due to the fact that iron from plant sources is less bioavailable than iron from meat sources:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269606

Vegans are deficient in vitamin A:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19103647
http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/137/11/2346.full
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118072051.htm
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/betacarotene.htm
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1545.full

>> No.14121935

>>14121924
Could you explain how this lacked sense of self makes it okay to kill?

>> No.14121944

>>14121924
Could you explain how this isn't an argument for infanticide?

>> No.14121945

>>14121931
based

>> No.14121956

>>14121931
All bullshit. Every major health organization says veganism is fine. They get in all their nutrition they just need to look up the correct foods to get. They all live longer lives and have better blood work as well.

>> No.14121958

>>14121828
Thank you for quoting 1 Timothy 4:4, for the preceding verse condemns persons who forbid certain foods (according to Hippolytus of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, etc, this refers specifically to meat) to the elect.
Now, begone with your unbiblical legalism.

>> No.14121969

>>14121931
Golems like this guy would need a study to convince them of the benefits of breathing if they didn't do it automatically

>> No.14121975

>>14121935
If you can't acknowledge your existence then why you care that it's gone?
>>14121944
>Something can't and will never have sense of self is the same as something that will have sense of self
Veganism does fuck you in the head after all

>> No.14121984

>>14121956
>>14121969
COPE

>> No.14121986

>>14121975
Lmao so on what day and what time does a baby go from no sense of a self to a fully constituted one?

>> No.14121993

>>14121986
The sense of self in humans develops over time? By the age of three we can talk about a clear cut sense of I but it continues to develop a lot after

>> No.14121994

>>14121956
>I reject your reality and substitute my own
OK zoomer.

>> No.14122001

>>14121994
Just looking at what all major health organizations and credible nutritionists say

>> No.14122005

>>14117573
>They're thinking, feeling beings. There's a strong utilitarian argument for not eating them.
pigs maybe, but chickens? naw dog

>> No.14122008

>>14121993
So you admit a gradient of development in the human being but not in nature. If a toddler can have a rudimentary sense of self based on its rudimentary grasp of language and abstraction, then so do animals, since they have been observed to reason, remember, and abstract at a similarly rudimentary level. See tool use in birds, for example.

You don't know what you're talking about

>> No.14122020

>>14121975
>Something can't and will never have sense of self is the same as something that will have sense of self
Does this mean I should cannibalize practicing Buddhists?

>> No.14122021

>>14121986
that's irrelevant

>> No.14122023

>>14122005
>things with nervous systems and brains don't feel things
>a sense doesn't produce sensations

What is this fucking cartoon planet you clowns live on?

>> No.14122028

>>14122001
All major health orgs say moderate red meat consumption is fine too, dumb cunt

>> No.14122030

>>14121828
if God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them so delicious?

>> No.14122035

>>14122023
Nociceptive reflexes aren't feelings. A clam doesn't feel sad that it's being cut in half :'(

>> No.14122045

>>14122008
A human being will gradually develop a sense of self, therefore it's wrong to kill them since they inevitably will have one. An animal never will, what you typed down is not sense of self you brain-dead chimp.
>>14122008
How do you mean? Just because he believes he can abandon his sense of self (I'm not sure what Buddhists actually believe, most likely wrong), doesn't mean you can kill him because he still does have one.

>> No.14122054

>>14122008
No non-human animal uses symbolic signs. It's why humans are so based

>> No.14122058

>>14122045
See: (>>14122020)

>> No.14122060

>>14122035

Compassion =/= cloying sentimentality

Sniveling little nerd cunt


>>14122045

You're too stupid for this debate. Human beings don't experience quantum leaps in selfhood. If a toddler can have an under-developed sense of self without a robust linguistic understanding, so can animals

>> No.14122067

>>14122054
>muh signs

>> No.14122073

>>14122060
>So can animals
Produce proof
Also, the arguement is again that the sense of self will and because it WILL develop, infanticide is not okay, ithos ethos, fictio juris, how can you not get something this simple through that cabbage you have instead of a brain

>> No.14122076

>>14122073
See: (>>14122020)
Don’t post again until you answer this.

>> No.14122077

>>14122060
Clams don't feel sad bro, it's okay to eat them. Same goes with many other animals

>> No.14122079

>>14117450
Devi does in most of her books.

>> No.14122084

>>14122073
I already gave you an example, but you conveniently ignored it. Go find it yourself miss me with that driving Miss Daisy bullshit

>> No.14122090

>>14122067
>muh literal ground of Being
Yep.

>> No.14122094

>>14122076
Humans develop a sense of self whether they like it or not. We won't not throw Armin Meiwes in prison because the other guy consented
>>14122084
Try to figure out what a sense of self is before replying

>> No.14122107

Morality is illogical. It can be moral to kill one type of sentient beings but not the other. That's just how morality works - if you don't feel that something is 'bad' then it is not. Currently, the majority of the population in western countries is okay with killing cows for food, but not with killing dogs. That's just how it is. Trying to make morality into a system based on logic and forcing some arbitrary rules in it like "killing sentient beings is immoral" will not work simply because morality is not derived from logic.

>> No.14122108

>>14122094
>Humans develop a sense of self whether they like it or not.
Proof? If someone is Buddhist, they don’t believe in a sense of self. What leads you to believe they change eventually?

>> No.14122109

>>14122090

Judaic twaddle. Muh immanent and eternal economy of signs. Everything is a product of human sign usage except "signs" themselves. Yawn.

>> No.14122118
File: 124 KB, 680x680, 135.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14122118

>>14122060
>Human beings don't experience quantum leaps in selfhood
The ego complex forms in a remarkably short time after dissociation from the mother. As soon as an infant is capable of moving about independently, it has a sense of self.

>> No.14122121

>>14122109
Wrong cunt. Read Peirce.

>> No.14122123

>>14122107
>Morality is illogical.
More importantly, morality is subjective. OP spends every waking hour trying to argue that it's not. Maybe that's why he's so angry.

>> No.14122131

Why would you go vegan if you can go vegetarian or pescatarian? The only difference between the former and the latter seems to be a degree of mental illness, indicated by OPs defensiveness and rejecting of data points.

>> No.14122132

>>14122118

Short time =/= quantum leap

>>14122121

Read Whitehead, pragmatists give me heartburn

>> No.14122153

>>14122132
Whitehead is a newage faggot that got retroactively refuted by Parmenides. He's gay and isn't taken seriously outside of some chink community colleges. If only he took his source material seriously

>> No.14122159

>>14122131
OP is certainly a curious case. Imagine creating a never-ending forum where you can be BTFO all day. I guess he's into masochism or some shit.

>> No.14122160

>>14122131
Pescatarian + red meat on ceremonial occasions is the Greek thus /lit/ diet

>> No.14122163

>>14122153
>duhh huhh duhh memes


Ok dude

>> No.14122167

>>14122067
They're direct evidence of abstract thought you dolt. An being that uses symbols is a thinking being. Name one animal that does that.

>> No.14122172

>>14122163
>durrrrrrrrrrr clam feel sad :'''((

>> No.14122179

>>14122167
"Feeling" is a technical term in Whitehead's thinking, you keep sentimentalizing it.

>> No.14122192

>>14122028
No they don't. They say minimal portions or avoid it at best.

>> No.14122194

>>14122167
He'll claim that apes or clams or whatever can use them without knowing that this is a perennial fact in the field of linguistics. Vegan """philosophers"'" have solved everything from the hard problem to quantum mechanics.

>> No.14122196

>>14122167
Dont the gorillas and chimps learn some signs, I think maybe parrots as well

>> No.14122197

>>14122030
They are delicious because of the way you cook them try eating raw animal meat. Humans were not meant to eat animals.

>> No.14122201

>>14122192
Yes they do. 3-4 times a week is fine

>> No.14122208

>>14122107
Morality is a spook and ethics should instead be based on ecology a la Ecosophy.
>>14122123
Im not a moralist

>> No.14122214

>>14122153
>Piercefag is just Guenonfag with an awful of Peirce
I knew it. Into the garbage you go.

>> No.14122227

>>14122201
No they do not. Eating red meat frequently is associated with heart disease and cancer.

>> No.14122235

>>14122227
>what is moderation
Kek. Typical extremist.
Drinking a quart of whisky every day is associated with liver failure. Doesn't mean you can't crack a beer now and then after work.

>> No.14122239

>>14122214
>Whiteheadfag mad that his daddy gets collectively memed on
Not everyone is guenonfag you schizo

>> No.14122243

>>14122227
Yes they do. Around 70-90g a day or 3-4 times a week. And that's red meat not other meats

>> No.14122250

>>14122208
Ecology is a spook. It's a liberal human science invented only a couple hundred years ago

>> No.14122252

>>14122235
3-4 times a week is not at all moderate first of all
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-red-meat

>> No.14122256

>>14122196
Not symbolic signs. Only indexes

>> No.14122259

>>14121931
5sec search says being Vegan is healthy, huh.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/

>> No.14122264

>>14122250
You are emergent within nature and are interconnected with your enviroment and other organisms within the world. Ecology is the most concrete form of study. Calling it a spook just shows how big of a pseud you are.

>> No.14122270

>>14122252
>If you eat red meat, limit consumption to no more than about three portions per week.
From the wcrf. Took one second to google

>> No.14122275

>>14122264
Stirner would laugh and spit in your face. Bourgeois liberal science is a spook. You're a fake anarchist

>> No.14122280
File: 66 KB, 850x400, Mikhail Bakunin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14122280

>>14122275
>Stirner
>real anarchist
Shut the fuck up kid. Morality and Anarchy are Absolute and go together.

>> No.14122284

>>14122275
Calling the study of biology 'bourgeois science' is way more spooked than the science itself. Surely all Stirner would care about is whether you can use the science for your own ends somehow, which means whether it helps you make accurate predictions about stuff.

>> No.14122285

>>14122275
>bougeois liberal science
t. brainded new age tradcuck that believes nigger sperm has magical qualities
Im not a Stirnerist first of all. And there is no denying your relations within nature.

>> No.14122291

>>14122208
>ethics should instead be based on ecology
OK zoomer.

>> No.14122297

>>14122280
>>14122284
>>14122285
All spooked fake anarchists. Keep guzzling that elite liberal technocratic jizz

>> No.14122301

>>14122208
How the fuck can ecology be prior to a moral system. Doesn't make any sense. Read some epistemology 101 retard.

>> No.14122303

>>14122297
be sure not to use any modern technology ever since that would vindicate liberal bourgeois science

>> No.14122307

>>14122301
Morality doesn't exist

>> No.14122308

>>14122303
Be sure to keep being a fake anarchist faggot

>> No.14122314

>>141227
Go live in the woods. And if ecology we're followed as ethics it would go against the powers of the oligarchs.

>> No.14122315

>>14122307
Ecology doesn't exist.

>> No.14122317

>>14122308
Im not any type of anarchist lmao, it's a fucking retarded ideology

>> No.14122321

>>14122315
It does. There is no denying your relations within nature. It is concrete fact. You are a brainlet solipsist if you think otherwise.

>> No.14122326

>>14122321
Morality exists too. There's no denying that your relations are subject to value judgments. You are a brainlet solipsist if you think otherwise

>> No.14122334

>>14122326
morality=/=ethics

>> No.14122337

>>14122334
Morality=ethics

>> No.14122355

>>14122301
>literally can't think outside the social

America was a mistake

>> No.14122358

>>14122355
You have to think ecology is good before putting it into practice you poo head

>> No.14122375

>>14122358
duhh duhhhh im a pragmatist normative normifiers normifying *farts*

>> No.14122396

>>14122375
I'm actually a clam, not a pragmatist. So please show me the compassion I deserve

>> No.14122460

>>14117450

Paola Cavalieri The animal question

>> No.14123250

>>14121956
>Every major health organization says
Every major health organization wants you weak and taking a handful of medications all the time so all the evidence of veganism being an awful lifestyle choice is irrelevant to them.

>> No.14123359

>>14122030
Same with humans and heroin