I see two problems here: First - the concept of “capability”. A human that has been temporarily sedated might have no awareness or self-awareness, but that is a temporary state. So the update for people that once were self-aware and expressed their will in case of losing self-awareness seems much needed. Still it might be hard to easily determine what is the “capability” for self-awareness, especially with humans who are incapacitated. Second - we have a much much bigger problem with determining the capabilities of non-human animals. And here we see two conflicting, but equally dishonest approaches. Some people tend to be overly optimistic - the research on great ape using sign language is a prime example of misinterpreting the data in favor of “humanising” other animals; while other people will keep to outdated ideas of “animal automatism” to reject any form of awareness in non-human animals. We still don’t fully understand what is the degree of animal awareness and this might be even an unsolvable problem (part of a hard problem of conciousness).
Singer is an academic intellectual charlatan. It's his so-called philosophy that is not "sacred" His iconoclasm is simply not serious beyond a veneer of shock value. A living, actualized, spiritual philosophy can be found in the wisdom of awakening to reality from the teachings of the Buddha, Socrates, Diogenes, Meister Eckhart, Huang Po, Hakuin and Kierkegaard, among others. They lived directly what they spoke about and believed. Ignoring silly people like Singer is the first step towards wisdom.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. However, I would disagree that Singer does not live his ethics. He is very committed to animal welfare, lives (almost) vegan and is involved in the Effective Altruism movement to fight poverty. But I will also present many more classical philosophers (including Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, ...) here on the channel. The series on Aristotle is already online: Aristotle th-cam.com/play/PLL30WkM5dicE4T8MQOjn--LfZ0P7IED67.html
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
I see two problems here:
First - the concept of “capability”. A human that has been temporarily sedated might have no awareness or self-awareness, but that is a temporary state. So the update for people that once were self-aware and expressed their will in case of losing self-awareness seems much needed. Still it might be hard to easily determine what is the “capability” for self-awareness, especially with humans who are incapacitated.
Second - we have a much much bigger problem with determining the capabilities of non-human animals. And here we see two conflicting, but equally dishonest approaches. Some people tend to be overly optimistic - the research on great ape using sign language is a prime example of misinterpreting the data in favor of “humanising” other animals; while other people will keep to outdated ideas of “animal automatism” to reject any form of awareness in non-human animals. We still don’t fully understand what is the degree of animal awareness and this might be even an unsolvable problem (part of a hard problem of conciousness).
Thank you very much for these very comprehensible and interesting thoughts.
Singer is an academic intellectual charlatan. It's his so-called philosophy that is not "sacred" His iconoclasm is simply not serious beyond a veneer of shock value. A living, actualized, spiritual philosophy can be found in the wisdom of awakening to reality from the teachings of the Buddha, Socrates, Diogenes, Meister Eckhart, Huang Po, Hakuin and Kierkegaard, among others. They lived directly what they spoke about and believed. Ignoring silly people like Singer is the first step towards wisdom.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. However, I would disagree that Singer does not live his ethics. He is very committed to animal welfare, lives (almost) vegan and is involved in the Effective Altruism movement to fight poverty.
But I will also present many more classical philosophers (including Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, ...) here on the channel. The series on Aristotle is already online: Aristotle
th-cam.com/play/PLL30WkM5dicE4T8MQOjn--LfZ0P7IED67.html
Nobody said that Singerʼs philosophy is sacred. So I donʼt know, what strawman you try to attack.