sadly i had to vote for LP.
Part of my religious conviction is that we are all made in the image of God, Imago Dei, There fore carry inherent value. whether or not someone deserves that value is another question, but we all have it.
I believe the jellyfish in its life probably does more for humanity than Logan Paul, but it is not human, same with the tree. the scabbies mite is about on par with logan but logan is still human.
(INSERT FIFTH OPTION 'homeless guy')
id vote for that homeless guy before any of those. even though it can be proven that he is probably a parasite on society
English
-
I am of the same mindset but at the risk of seeming analytical or petty I had to vote for trees because without them everything would become extinct. All this talk of planets being close to habitable and whatnot is bull for we can never thrive without oxygen and trees provide all that we need, and these so called habitable planets lack trees or any vegetation of any sort. Since we need oxygen to operate, and trees are the only thing that naturally provide it, I view trees as just as important if not more necessary than humans ourselves. Because our whole existence is based on the production of oxygen.
-
Interesting. I see people as, well, not having any inherent value, save for intermediary potentiality. That is to say, a person has infinite potential, but can only express that through tangible, or societal means. How they express that is dependant upon the intermediary value of their character, which can be both greater than all things, or worse than all things. Thus, making their value entirely dependant upon the expression of their potentiality.
-
what should we do then, with people who scuttle their potential and have no value?
-
To say that they waste their potential is to misinterpret what I said. There is no standard by which to compare. The person them self sets their own standard, and assumes any value through their expression. It isn't a purposeful choice, rather one made of habituation and a lack of the comprehensive method. But again, there is no set standard, no zenith or nadir, it is infinite both ways, and by that account we could say every one wastes potential.
-
so instead of having a metric we leave it up to the whim of the individual?
-
We can determine someone's value based on our own. Whether they be higher or lower than us is indeterminate as an objectivity, for the same person you assume superiority over assume the same over you. Their conclusive value is only determined in finality upon their life's conclusion. They of course retain some form of value to you or I, and we treat such beings accordingly, and at times the masses will share such an assertion of station. At such times, we may be comforted by our assessment, which is a certainty to ourselves, but differentiable from the truth. The two are quite different, after all.
-
-
Is something confounding you?
-
nah, existentialism isn't confusing me, i'm thinking about my next question.