AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2021, 9:54 am
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?
