because they result in a host of situations we would rather avoid
lol - well I guess if there are no conscious experiencers (including humans) that would solve the problem
The Human Situation
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
But you have still not explained what you mean by "the problem of the human situation".
You gave an example of "the lights go out... " etc - but this is no different to any other "problem" - i.e. the person finds themself in an unwanted position.
What is "the problem of the human situation" such that it is different to any other?
Afterall, it is we humans who determine what is a "problem" for ourselves. The assessment is entirely subjective based on all our experiences to that point. One man's "problem" is another man's "challenge" to be embraced.
So I fail to see what you are actually driving at, as you singularly fail to address the key point of distinguishing "the problem of the human situation" from any other problem.
No - not "solve" - remove the assessment that there ever was a "problem" - which is different to "solve".
Last edited:
Sarkus
due to our advanced consciousness, we are unable to remain in a satisfied position by meeting the bare necessities of eating, sleeping, mating and defending - unlike other animals. we have a more powerful mind, and thus merely eating doesn't constitute satisfaction but rather eating off a golden plate (for eg) - and in the pursuit of such commodities we encounter a unique series of problems not experienced by lower species.
IOW we are distinct from the animals not by the problems that the pursuit of our needs invoke, but by the problems our wants invoke
already mentioned half a dozen posts down - but for some reason you didn't seem to catch it
due to our advanced consciousness, we are unable to remain in a satisfied position by meeting the bare necessities of eating, sleeping, mating and defending - unlike other animals. we have a more powerful mind, and thus merely eating doesn't constitute satisfaction but rather eating off a golden plate (for eg) - and in the pursuit of such commodities we encounter a unique series of problems not experienced by lower species.
IOW we are distinct from the animals not by the problems that the pursuit of our needs invoke, but by the problems our wants invoke
if there is no one to experience a problem there certainly is no problem - generally people wouldn't accept that as a tenable solution however since the prospect of not existing tends to also cause problems ...
But this is not "the problem of the human situation" - rather merely the nature of problems as a whole - the subjective assessment of one's situation as being undesirable.
You can remove the entire "problem" patter from the discussion and still reach the same point you want to make....
Humans are different to animals through having WANTS rather than merely NEEDS.
The fact that both wants and needs generate "problems" appears to be irrelevant to the actual point you want to make.
And please identify a "problem" that is NOT a matter of subjectivity.
"Problem" is ONLY subjective.
Or are you claiming that the problem of fulfilling needs is objective and wants is subjective?
"No problem" is not the same as "problem solved".
If I put a mathematical "problem" in front of you - and then remove it - has the "problem" been solved or removed?
And since when does "no one to experience a problem" equate to "no one existing"? Did you experience the latest eruption on a planet circling a star in a distant galaxy? Wow - you must not exist!
Sarkus
I am claiming that there are standard problems that exist in this world (micro/meso/macrocosmic) and that the unique position of humans is that they can come to the point of solving the more tricky ones by means other than objectification (objectification - thinking that the problem is "out there" separate from me) but rather understanding that the source of such problems is the mind ("I am part of the problem") - thus by knowledge one is empowered to actually solve the problems of life instead of laboring for the acquisition of gold plates to eat off (the objectification of problems is the driving force of industrialism and consumerism - which in turn pose some macrocosmic (environmental) problems)
- hence the human situation is the subjective experience (as indicated) in the nature of problems as a whole
which would provide a convenient means to bypass discussion that many problems cannot be solved by objectification
and what is that point I want to make?
You're asking me to identify a problem that isn't experienced by someone?
how would fulfilling needs not be subjective?
I am claiming that there are standard problems that exist in this world (micro/meso/macrocosmic) and that the unique position of humans is that they can come to the point of solving the more tricky ones by means other than objectification (objectification - thinking that the problem is "out there" separate from me) but rather understanding that the source of such problems is the mind ("I am part of the problem") - thus by knowledge one is empowered to actually solve the problems of life instead of laboring for the acquisition of gold plates to eat off (the objectification of problems is the driving force of industrialism and consumerism - which in turn pose some macrocosmic (environmental) problems)
if by removing it from me it means that I am not obliged to solve it, yes
how do you propose a problem be experienced by no one?
if no one experienced it or the effects of it, its not clear how we could discuss the problems arising from it (IOW its not our problem)
Please identify a problem that you feel is solved by "objectification".
and what is that point I want to make?
No - I'm telling you that "problem" is SUBJECTIVE. There is NO OBJECTIVE - no objectification.
Name one that is "solved" by objectification.
I obviously fail to see what you're getting at. I think you are creating an artificial and otherwise non-existent split between types of problems, yet you clearly understand that all problems are subjective. Please clarify.
Then this is not "solved" - it merely doesn't exist for you. Do you understand the difference?
Non-sequitor from the comment I made: And since when does "no one to experience a problem" equate to "no one existing"?
So therefore you don't exist?
Sarkus
the relationship between a problem and a living entity experiencing a problem doesn't exist
gave one in the OP
you tell me
looks like you didn't read the OP carefully
clearly explained in the OP
all in the OP
and a problem that doesn't exist certainly doesn't require a solution - clever huh?
if a problem occurs with no one to bear the effect, it is certainly a clever way of dealing with problems ....
no
the relationship between a problem and a living entity experiencing a problem doesn't exist
For Pete's sake - I've been asking you to try and clarify exactly what you mean from the get-go.
But your entire response seems to be one of vagueness and avoidance.
If I do not understand either the gist or point of your OP (which I clearly have not been able to do - as surely evidenced even by you from my first few posts) then to merely go "clearly explained in the OP" or "gave one in the OP" is a wonderful answer to give!
I dearly hope you are not a school-teacher.And you STILL haven't explained what you mean by "the problem of the human situation". You state the phrase but you don't explain it. Please do so.
Now - let's get some things cleared up...
"Problem" ONLY exists in the subjective.
A "problem" is ONLY from the perspective of a viewer / participant.
Remove the viewer... "objectify" the problem - and you remove the "problem" and turn it in to merely an observation.
Science doesn't examine and study "problems".
Science certainly examines and studies observations that one might consider to be a problem depending on circumstance.
E.g. Science studies volcanoes. Volcanoes are NOT problems - but a person standing next to one as it erupts will see it as such - entirely because of their SUBJECTIVE view.
So it is impossible to objectify "problems" - as you seem to think - as to do so removes the subjectivity that "problem" is entirely associate with.
Would you agree that spiders are not a "problem" per se?
Now I have a "problem" with spiders - I have a mild phobia that causes me to freeze momentarily.
Is the "problem" me? Is the "problem" the spider? Or is the relationship between me and the spider the "problem" - the relationship being the sensory input (i.e. sight) of the spider, and my brain's interpretation and activation of the fear-centre (and associated parts)?