By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Absurdities Beyond Anti-Racism By James Reed
Racism is all about generally white, and primarily Northern European people doing things that globalists don’t like. But the anti-discrimination discrimination ideology does not stop there, but goes down all the way to animals, maybe plants, and perhaps even what we take to be inanimate objects, which, according to the philosophy of panpsychism, have a mental aspect to them. So maybe even subatomic particles have moral rights?
“Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature. …
The word “panpsychism” literally means that everything has a mind. However, in contemporary debates it is generally understood as the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. Thus, in conjunction with the widely held assumption (which will be reconsidered below) that fundamental things exist only at the micro-level, panpsychism entails that at least some kinds of micro-level entities have mentality, and that instances of those kinds are found in all things throughout the material universe. So whilst the panpsychist holds that mentality is distributed throughout the natural world—in the sense that all material objects have parts with mental properties—she needn’t hold that literally everything has a mind, e.g., she needn’t hold that a rock has mental properties (just that the rock’s fundamental parts do).”
Well, I for one believe that if we are going to posit that the fundamental particles have a mind, then so do rocks! Yes, civil rights for rocks, which is not too far from the anti-mining philosophy of modern Greenies, is it? Anyway, where is all of this leading? To this:
“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling for an end to what it calls “speciesism,” or using animal names in negative contexts, such as “beat a dead horse” or “take the bull by the horns.” “Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it,” PETA posted on its Twitter account on Tuesday, comparing these idioms to racist and homophobic language. Instead of saying “kill two birds with one stone,” people should say “feed two birds with one scone,” although the first phrase refers to using resources wisely to accomplish multiple goals and nothing to do with feeding or literally killing birds. Instead of “beat a dead horse,” PETA recommends saying “feed a fed horse,” even though “beat a dead horse” means one should not waste time doing something that will not work–nothing to do with feeding horses. “Be the guinea pig” should change to “be the test tube” and “bring home the bacon” to “bring home the bagels,” referring to PETA’s stance that everyone should be a vegan. The final entry on the graph is that “take the bull by the horns”–which is meant to express that people should tackle a challenge head on–should become “take the flower by the thorns.”
I am afraid our vegan friends are simply not going far enough, and need to consider that bagels, flowers and thorns, are just as much people as say cuddly pandas, or tape worms! Otherwise, you are discriminating, and that by definition, is wicked. Surely, it must be wrong, on this metaphysics, if consistently practiced, to eat, breathe or do anything. Guess what happens next?