At one time, I had 8 feral cats, they’re all gone now. Every time I seen their faces, I don’t know, I’m easy and fed them for years. I even made shelters for them too😁
I think there was a bit of ‘mirror’ going on when I wrote this, Jo-Ann. I saw the cat sat waiting, wasting his life hanging around to see what came to him, and I saw a little of myself and it grated.
He is, but he needs to pull his finger out (pull his paw out?😂🤷♀️) and help himself a little now it’s summer. I don’t want him to get too reliant. He was born free and capable. It’s worth holding on to.
But aren't you as much part of the natural conditions surrounding this cat as are the mice, birds, fleas and dogs? I mean, people who have them as pets aren't necessarily to be considered as their oppressors are they.
For example, would it be such a tyrannical act against the natural order of things to catch the cat, de-flea him and set him lose again? If this cat were suddenly attacked by a dog would you not attempt to save his life? Or would you simply defer to the natural order of things.
There are actually 3 feral cats that visit. Word got out.😂
My favourite one was caught by a well meaning neighbour when quite young, neutered, then set back loose again. A few months ago, I noticed he had something wrong with his coat, bald patches on his back and thought about doing something but decided to let nature take its course and sure enough, spring came, he shed his winter coat, got a new one and all is well again. That said, if he were seriously injured/in great pain, I think I’d have to do something.
The younger two (maybe a year old now and siblings) are less tame and I have never stroked them as I don’t want to get them too dependent on me.
I deliberately try not to name them so as not to get attached (very ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I know).
There are deeper questions here I’ve meant to imply.
What is it about the human psyche that supposes some great distinction between human behavior and the natural order of things?
What is the basis/origin of this distinction?
How is it that someone can shoot up a grade school and be held to criminal account (for the sake of “justice”), but a tornado slams a school bus full of children down in a corn field and its judged by some to be an “act of god”?
How is there to be assumed a difference between what is "man-made" and what’s natural, whilst all men (and at least a few women) are themselves not just products of nature, but will ultimately return to nature?
IMO, this distinction btw human behavior and acts of nature is more apparent than real.
Of course, the question ultimately becomes to what extent/degree does one attribute so-called “free will” against genetic determinisms beyond our control?
I have often pondered similar myself. For example when people talk about ‘natural’ remedies and ‘medicine’ (pharmaceuticals) I mean what are they using to create the medicine in the first place? It surely starts from something found on the earth and further manipulated/reconstructed.
I think people pick a position on ‘free will’ that suits their own narrative. If they see their life as successful, they tend to say it was down to their hard work, their ‘free will’. If it’s not going well, they tend to blame their bad luck, fate etc. Suppose they dislike the accountability.
I find it interesting how the ‘out of my control’ thing affects people differently. For example, one of the things I love about air travel is that it’s out of my hands. I have no bearing on whether that plane will crash or not. I am completely at the mercy
of external forces. I find that weirdly reassuring.
Another person would be terrified by that same prospect.
Maybe I’ve gone off the point, but it’s kind of related.
I too have wondered about the distinction you mention concerning remedies/medicines. Its as if we’re meant to believe these synthesized chemicals must have come from another planet. The “all-natural” proponents apparently fail to take into account that snake venom, for one example, is also natural. Just b/c something is natural doesn’t make it demonstrably better. For anyone.
You may also recall the Human Genome Project. The goal was identifying, mapping and sequencing all human genes. I was curious to perhaps find out the answer to a very old question, to wit:
“How much of human behaviour may be attributed to free will v. hard-wired genetic determinants over which the human being has no volition”?
Of course, that question never got answered, but I didn’t think it particularly irrelevant.
But imagine if the conclusion of that project was that ALL human behavior is demonstrably genetically-determined. Well, of course the repercussions would be immense. We’d probably be constrained to either reconsider, or possibly dismantle, practically all judicial systems on Earth, and most religious institutions would become obsolete overnight.
This would have resulted in a genuine paradigm shift of many highly-venerated political, judicial and cultural institutions around the world.
Yes, it seems to come down to what we can see - or think we see, and interpret. The other day a guy here threw a toddler into a crocodile pit and it savaged the kid’s arm. Word was, he had some sort of learning disability. This led to much discussion around whether he could be deemed culpable. But what if someone else had done that, someone who wasn’t quite so obviously intellectually impaired yet was also hardwired to have that compulsion? Food for thought, all of it.
But to be clear, was it the guy, the toddler or the crocodile who had the learning disability? Sorry. Me being an ass.
But in this case I think we see the question under question still remains a question. My guess is they had to "put down" the crocodile who was guilty of simply being a crocodile anyway. So a double tragedy.
On the bright side the child will at least have a fascinating story to tell his grandchildren on how he lost his arm (though the prospects of his ever playing an etude by Chopin have been severely diminished).
So we must always keep a positive outlook, Ms Dee.
I once heard a story about a mother who was lamenting the death of her child by drowning in the local lake. She was of course distraught, and found screaming her protestations to the sky, apparently in petition to God asking “Why? Why did this happen to my child?!” At which point a local doctor at the scene came to her side and gave her the utterly unsatisfactory, but ultimately true answer, “Because children cannot breathe underwater”.
Thus too, even the search for truth is more apparent than real.
At one time, I had 8 feral cats, they’re all gone now. Every time I seen their faces, I don’t know, I’m easy and fed them for years. I even made shelters for them too😁
I think there was a bit of ‘mirror’ going on when I wrote this, Jo-Ann. I saw the cat sat waiting, wasting his life hanging around to see what came to him, and I saw a little of myself and it grated.
🤗 I get that
I have one that I feed but can never get close to yet. He (or she) has started leaving me gifts to show me they are working for their food,
Three are 3 that come here. They keep me busy.
Great words l can see him he is real waiting for you to feed him Bless you for feeding him.He must like human contact.Thanks Julie 😊 xxx.
He is, but he needs to pull his finger out (pull his paw out?😂🤷♀️) and help himself a little now it’s summer. I don’t want him to get too reliant. He was born free and capable. It’s worth holding on to.
😂xxx.
But aren't you as much part of the natural conditions surrounding this cat as are the mice, birds, fleas and dogs? I mean, people who have them as pets aren't necessarily to be considered as their oppressors are they.
For example, would it be such a tyrannical act against the natural order of things to catch the cat, de-flea him and set him lose again? If this cat were suddenly attacked by a dog would you not attempt to save his life? Or would you simply defer to the natural order of things.
It certainly raise interesting questions.
There are actually 3 feral cats that visit. Word got out.😂
My favourite one was caught by a well meaning neighbour when quite young, neutered, then set back loose again. A few months ago, I noticed he had something wrong with his coat, bald patches on his back and thought about doing something but decided to let nature take its course and sure enough, spring came, he shed his winter coat, got a new one and all is well again. That said, if he were seriously injured/in great pain, I think I’d have to do something.
The younger two (maybe a year old now and siblings) are less tame and I have never stroked them as I don’t want to get them too dependent on me.
I deliberately try not to name them so as not to get attached (very ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s, I know).
*Not a crazy cat lady, honest 😂
There are deeper questions here I’ve meant to imply.
What is it about the human psyche that supposes some great distinction between human behavior and the natural order of things?
What is the basis/origin of this distinction?
How is it that someone can shoot up a grade school and be held to criminal account (for the sake of “justice”), but a tornado slams a school bus full of children down in a corn field and its judged by some to be an “act of god”?
How is there to be assumed a difference between what is "man-made" and what’s natural, whilst all men (and at least a few women) are themselves not just products of nature, but will ultimately return to nature?
IMO, this distinction btw human behavior and acts of nature is more apparent than real.
Of course, the question ultimately becomes to what extent/degree does one attribute so-called “free will” against genetic determinisms beyond our control?
Oh yes, I did get that from the response too.
I have often pondered similar myself. For example when people talk about ‘natural’ remedies and ‘medicine’ (pharmaceuticals) I mean what are they using to create the medicine in the first place? It surely starts from something found on the earth and further manipulated/reconstructed.
I think people pick a position on ‘free will’ that suits their own narrative. If they see their life as successful, they tend to say it was down to their hard work, their ‘free will’. If it’s not going well, they tend to blame their bad luck, fate etc. Suppose they dislike the accountability.
I find it interesting how the ‘out of my control’ thing affects people differently. For example, one of the things I love about air travel is that it’s out of my hands. I have no bearing on whether that plane will crash or not. I am completely at the mercy
of external forces. I find that weirdly reassuring.
Another person would be terrified by that same prospect.
Maybe I’ve gone off the point, but it’s kind of related.
I too have wondered about the distinction you mention concerning remedies/medicines. Its as if we’re meant to believe these synthesized chemicals must have come from another planet. The “all-natural” proponents apparently fail to take into account that snake venom, for one example, is also natural. Just b/c something is natural doesn’t make it demonstrably better. For anyone.
You may also recall the Human Genome Project. The goal was identifying, mapping and sequencing all human genes. I was curious to perhaps find out the answer to a very old question, to wit:
“How much of human behaviour may be attributed to free will v. hard-wired genetic determinants over which the human being has no volition”?
Of course, that question never got answered, but I didn’t think it particularly irrelevant.
But imagine if the conclusion of that project was that ALL human behavior is demonstrably genetically-determined. Well, of course the repercussions would be immense. We’d probably be constrained to either reconsider, or possibly dismantle, practically all judicial systems on Earth, and most religious institutions would become obsolete overnight.
This would have resulted in a genuine paradigm shift of many highly-venerated political, judicial and cultural institutions around the world.
Yes, it seems to come down to what we can see - or think we see, and interpret. The other day a guy here threw a toddler into a crocodile pit and it savaged the kid’s arm. Word was, he had some sort of learning disability. This led to much discussion around whether he could be deemed culpable. But what if someone else had done that, someone who wasn’t quite so obviously intellectually impaired yet was also hardwired to have that compulsion? Food for thought, all of it.
Tragic story to be sure.
But to be clear, was it the guy, the toddler or the crocodile who had the learning disability? Sorry. Me being an ass.
But in this case I think we see the question under question still remains a question. My guess is they had to "put down" the crocodile who was guilty of simply being a crocodile anyway. So a double tragedy.
On the bright side the child will at least have a fascinating story to tell his grandchildren on how he lost his arm (though the prospects of his ever playing an etude by Chopin have been severely diminished).
So we must always keep a positive outlook, Ms Dee.
An anecdotal addendum.
I once heard a story about a mother who was lamenting the death of her child by drowning in the local lake. She was of course distraught, and found screaming her protestations to the sky, apparently in petition to God asking “Why? Why did this happen to my child?!” At which point a local doctor at the scene came to her side and gave her the utterly unsatisfactory, but ultimately true answer, “Because children cannot breathe underwater”.
Thus too, even the search for truth is more apparent than real.