[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

ab67616d0000b27382…

Anonymous 74636

Thoughts on anthropocentrism?

Anonymous 74637

>>74636
uh oh
stinky

Anonymous 74971

ken 9 manuhamu.png

>>74636
>the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.

Makes sense to me, but I was born and raised as a westerner, so obviously my perception is skewed.
Why would other animals and earth-bound species be superior if they can't think to the same degree we can? Can't be as evil as we can?
Humans are top of the food chain, can cause the most suffering, and therefore are the most "significant" entities. We also create the most physical change and feel/think differently from animals. We have a different value from certain animals because of this. I'm not going to treat a roach the same as a thinking, feeling human.
anyways, what are YOUR thoughts op? why bring this up?

Anonymous 74972

>>74971
fucked up my damn Britannica copy-paste
>Anthropocentrism, philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthropocentrism

Anonymous 75004

>>74636
Humans are inherently anthropocentric. They can't not be something, we obviously think in terms of how things relate to us and can only see how we see. This applies to everything. An animal's world is very small and purely about its comfort, hunger, and reproduction- for an animal everything is reduced to those terms, it cannot perceive any other qualities in something.

>>74971
Westerners are probably the least anthropocentric imo. The idea that they're particularly anthropocentric and others are somehow not, is a exactly a Western conceit.

Concerning animals. Aside from some selective Indian and Japanese practices that have religious reasons, Westerners invented animal rights and are the only ones to really care about them. That could be seen as anthropocentric though because 'caring about them' entails humanising them, which kind of denies their nature and makes them something self-indulgent, an item in an anthropocentric world than their own thing.

Anonymous 75068

>>74971
>Why would other animals and earth-bound species be superior if they can't think to the same degree we can? Can't be as evil as we can?
Because they contribute to the existence of life on Earth more than we do.
>We also create the most physical change
The changes we made in the world are nothing compared to what cyanobacteria did. The difference is that we will eventually go extinct while cyanobacteria will continue existing as long as Earth does.
>and feel/think differently from animals
All our behaviors boil down to need to thrive and reproduce, extremely banal, same as every other living being on the planet.

Anonymous 75070

>>75004
Humans also only think in terms of comfort, hunger and reproduction, everything else is subsidiary. The only exception is suicide, but even then that is a form of escape from pain and distress, so it's still part of the "comfort" concept.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]