Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[AmericanKestrel]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

[3017Metaphysician]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

Taken from William Barrett's, Irrational Man:

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."


- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.

- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.

-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.

-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.

I would like to propose that the metaphysical will (to live and survive) precedes the ability to reason and intellectualize from our senses (sense data). Consider why an individual wills themselves to live in the first place. Intellect seems to be subordinate to a greater feeling and/or that impulse of the Will. The will, may very well be this 'dumb and blind feeling' that existentially, just is. It just is, and exists a priori. It's fixed and innate to Being. Much like emergent instinct.

A practical example is the idea associated with the feeling of interconnect-ness viz. relationships. Human's have a need to be with other's and feel happy. Cognitive science says that it is only through other's that we achieve our goals( to fulfill purpose). Someone had to build the house we live in, or assemble the toys we have, make the cloths we wear, farm the food we eat, ad nauseum. We are interconnected, which is not too different than the idea of Love itself; to love ourselves and to love each other. And if some of these needs are not fulfilled, one may will themselves to die. Although that would indeed suggest that reason and intellect is preeminent or precedes the Will, it doesn't square with our intrinsic need or impulse to be, and seek happiness.

This seems much like asking the prisoner in solitary confinement with a death sentence and no appeals/parole, why he/she continues to will to live. Is it a feeling of hope? Hope for what? Metaphysically. what is hope, in and of itself? A feeling of some sort?

[Sculptor1]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

Rocks are not sentient.
It is a complete misunderstanding of sentience and a denial of the remarkable emergence on earth of this phenomenon.
To even atrribute sentience to plants is a complete travesty of the meaning of the word.
I can only conclude that "Samasara" is something entirely different.
ANd hey presto when I look it up we find Samsara means something utterly different.

[popeye1945]

What is sentience? Panphyicism is I think what you have in mind I think, find link below.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pa ... ORM=HDRSC3

[Count Lucanor]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones.

The word "so" might have given the impression that what came next was the logical conclusion from the first statement, but obviously it was not. And so, we are left wondering from where the Eastern thinkers took the idea that plants, rocks and stones are subject to feelings, sensations, suffering and rebirth. That is an extraordinaire claim.

Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

No, it doesn't make any sense, but I can guarantee you that many Western philosophers are willing to entertain that and even much more nonsense.

[mystery]

In the past, very good-sized businesses existed around sentient rocks.
https://www.petrock.com/

Seriously it comes down to what can we perceive. Our senses are not enough to perceive but only a small amount of the entire universe even if we are able to reach it all. The question would have a different answer millions of years from now, after that time we would know more. Perhaps we are not as important as we think and don't know it.

These people support the idea of the great spirit and take it seriously, Native Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_mythology

[3017Metaphysician]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones.

The word "so" might have given the impression that what came next was the logical conclusion from the first statement, but obviously it was not. And so, we are left wondering from where the Eastern thinkers took the idea that plants, rocks and stones are subject to feelings, sensations, suffering and rebirth. That is an extraordinaire claim.

Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

No, it doesn't make any sense, but I can guarantee you that many Western philosophers are willing to entertain that and even much more nonsense.

News flash. Human sentience and intellect is an insoluble mix that is logically impossible to describe or explain. Much like the subconscious mind and the conscious mind working together. Hence, our own existence is not logical.

Philosophy itself lives in the logic of language and words. But existence itself, is something beyond pure reason. These things 'not making sense' or perceived as nonsense; you should embrace them

[AmericanKestrel]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones.

The word "so" might have given the impression that what came next was the logical conclusion from the first statement, but obviously it was not. And so, we are left wondering from where the Eastern thinkers took the idea that plants, rocks and stones are subject to feelings, sensations, suffering and rebirth. That is an extraordinaire claim.

I am sorry that ‘so’ caused some consternation
The idea behind it is the concept of karma and rebirth, although i dont know if Jains and Budhists believe in rebirth. In any case all of what we see as the world, are in essence conciousness, one single Conciousness. The form each takes is transient, subject to decay and death. Conciousness is eternal and is all there is. Everything is connected and are all within the single Conciousness.

[Count Lucanor]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones.

The word "so" might have given the impression that what came next was the logical conclusion from the first statement, but obviously it was not. And so, we are left wondering from where the Eastern thinkers took the idea that plants, rocks and stones are subject to feelings, sensations, suffering and rebirth. That is an extraordinaire claim.

I am sorry that ‘so’ caused some consternation
The idea behind it is the concept of karma and rebirth, although i dont know if Jains and Budhists believe in rebirth. In any case all of what we see as the world, are in essence conciousness, one single Conciousness. The form each takes is transient, subject to decay and death. Conciousness is eternal and is all there is. Everything is connected and are all within the single Conciousness.

All evidence amounts to the opposite, but I'm sure everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, either gods, eternal consciousness or dragons.

[Atla]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

Eastern thought gets non-duality right in general as opposed to Western philosophy, yes there is "one Consciousness" which is the same as existence, as the world. In that sense, everything is sentient. But the normal meaning of sentience is roughly: having/being an individual mind, obviously rocks aren't sentient in that sense.

The karmic cycle / suffering / rebirth etc. is entirely nonsense and not needed for the above to be true.

[Pattern-chaser]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

Rocks are not sentient.
It is a complete misunderstanding of sentience and a denial of the remarkable emergence on earth of this phenomenon.
To even attribute sentience to plants is a complete travesty of the meaning of the word.

General comment, not personally aimed at Sculptor1, but at him and all others who voice similar views regularly.

Why is it that philosophers have such huge difficulties when asked to generalise and broaden their thinking? Is flexibility of thought so difficult, or is it that this flexibility is considered ideologically unsound, I wonder?

[Sculptor1]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones. They may be at different levels of awareness, but they are all within the same Consciousness, the Oneness. Hinduism is mostly concerned with humans when discussing philosophy, in particular, Advaita or non-duality, although non-humans are also considered sentient. Budhists and Jains include all things that exist as being sentient.
Does this make sense, a concept that can be understood and accepted? How does it differ from Western philosophy?
Thank you.

Rocks are not sentient.
It is a complete misunderstanding of sentience and a denial of the remarkable emergence on earth of this phenomenon.
To even attribute sentience to plants is a complete travesty of the meaning of the word.

General comment, not personally aimed at Sculptor1, but at him and all others who voice similar views regularly.

Why is it that philosophers have such huge difficulties when asked to generalise and broaden their thinking? Is flexibility of thought so difficult, or is it that this flexibility is considered ideologically unsound, I wonder?

I think the attribute of an open mind is great untill all the reason falls out of it.
Rather than pretend that you were not making a "personal comment", why do you not just say how a "rock is conscious" is demonstrable in some way?

[Consul]

The word "sentience" is ambiguous between "(the capacity for) sensory perception" and "(the capacity for) sensory experience". I call sentience in the first sense "objective sentience" and sentience in the second sense "subjective sentience". Objective sentience is independent of subjective sentience, so sensory perception without sensory experience (= subjective sensations/sense-impressions) is possible. Perceiving or perceptually conscious organisms aren't necessarily experiencing or experientially (phenomenally) conscious organisms!

[Consul]

The word "sentience" is ambiguous between "(the capacity for) sensory perception" and "(the capacity for) sensory experience". I call sentience in the first sense "objective sentience" and sentience in the second sense "subjective sentience".

objective sentience = sensory percipience
subjective sentience = sensory experience

[UniversalAlien]

In Eastern thought sentience is understood as all beings that are subject to feelings and sensations, suffering, and rebirth. In sum, it is called Samsara. So this includes not just humans, but also animals, plants, even rocks and stones.

The word "so" might have given the impression that what came next was the logical conclusion from the first statement, but obviously it was not. And so, we are left wondering from where the Eastern thinkers took the idea that plants, rocks and stones are subject to feelings, sensations, suffering and rebirth. That is an extraordinaire claim.

I am sorry that ‘so’ caused some consternation
The idea behind it is the concept of karma and rebirth, although i dont know if Jains and Budhists believe in rebirth. In any case all of what we see as the world, are in essence conciousness, one single Conciousness. The form each takes is transient, subject to decay and death. Conciousness is eternal and is all there is. Everything is connected and are all within the single Conciousness.

YES

Sentience is a relative term and may have different definitions and meanings

- But the 'matrix' of all remains the same.

Form Max Planck world famous physicist and founder of Quantum Mechanics:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.
We cannot get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck