Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, I've been known to actually do more than just reprimand them. But afterwards, I always feel kind of guilty!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Everything Alive?
- Thread starter rocala
- Start date
My tongue wags so sharply that the rocks feel guilty.Well, I've been known to actually do more than just reprimand them. But afterwards, I always feel kind of guilty!
Is Everything Alive?
I will answer 'Yes'. It is all part of Brahman and animated by his will.
I will answer 'Yes'. It is all part of Brahman and animated by his will.
For countless centuries the Man has kept minerals down. And most other natural forces, really.Well, I've been known to actually do more than just reprimand them. But afterwards, I always feel kind of guilty!
cambridge79
Active Member
So when i die my cadaver is still alive? Sounds pretty weird to me
A few things worth considering here.
First, on a fundamental level, the things we call "alive" and the things we call "not alive" are all interconnected anyway. So much so that to make a strong distinction between them may not make as much sense as it might appear. Right now, your own body is full of all sorts of stuff that you would probably call "not alive." The "not alive" calcium of your teeth and bones. The "not alive" air that sustains you each and every moment. The "not alive" food in your stomach whose "not alive" nutrients are being distributed throughout your body. And so on. Basically, the boundary between "alive" and "not alive" is... well... pretty non-existent when you get right down to it. Or at best, it's paper-thin. The nature of each is contingent upon the other.
Second, it is important to consider that when cultures call something "alive" this also usually has ethical implications. It is not uncommon in my culture for there to be wide disregard for anything labeled "not alive." The "not alive" is seen as having no value, or as only having value because it is important for supporting the things we call "alive." It opens the door to abuse the "not alive" thing however one wants free of guilt. It is extraordinarily rare that we regard "not alive" things as moral subjects, basically. Which, depending on your ethical framework, may or may not be problematic.
First, on a fundamental level, the things we call "alive" and the things we call "not alive" are all interconnected anyway. So much so that to make a strong distinction between them may not make as much sense as it might appear. Right now, your own body is full of all sorts of stuff that you would probably call "not alive." The "not alive" calcium of your teeth and bones. The "not alive" air that sustains you each and every moment. The "not alive" food in your stomach whose "not alive" nutrients are being distributed throughout your body. And so on. Basically, the boundary between "alive" and "not alive" is... well... pretty non-existent when you get right down to it. Or at best, it's paper-thin. The nature of each is contingent upon the other.
Second, it is important to consider that when cultures call something "alive" this also usually has ethical implications. It is not uncommon in my culture for there to be wide disregard for anything labeled "not alive." The "not alive" is seen as having no value, or as only having value because it is important for supporting the things we call "alive." It opens the door to abuse the "not alive" thing however one wants free of guilt. It is extraordinarily rare that we regard "not alive" things as moral subjects, basically. Which, depending on your ethical framework, may or may not be problematic.
It'll be teeming with bugs who relish the fact that your immune system retired.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, they are interconnected, but there does seem to be a distinction between organic and inorganic. Though it's not a clear cut distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If everything is alive, the whole concept of living is unnecessary.
Incidentally, the answer is clear once one understands the definitions of "thing" and "alive." Whatever good that will do.
Incidentally, the answer is clear once one understands the definitions of "thing" and "alive." Whatever good that will do.
Generally anything that has a conscious is 'alive'. A rock is an object made of minerals, and our concept of 'alive' does not apply to the rock. However everything is alive. atoms are buzzing everywhere, it's just consciousness we are concerned about. All matter comes from consciousness, which is alive.
including plants. The earth, galaxies, everything.
cruxette
Member
Yes. Everything is in a way alive. I've already described the experience in another thread that led me to know this. It was when I was 9 and I met an earth spirit. My family had moved into the house about a year ago. The earth spirit was there to check that we weren't going to harm the land. The earth has intelligence. It's not IQ test sort of intelligence. But it's a state of being alive.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It's called panpsychism. And most spiritual traditions subscribe to it. (This is basically the difference between the mechanistic view and the organismic view.)