Philosophy of being a vegan.

[g0rph]

BTW the above is not to endorse or promote a materialistic understanding of reality, I believe the force moving the world we perceive is spiritual.

I would like to be a fly on the wall of your thought processes.

I am about as spiritual as a brick in the face.

My opinion of reality is of objects, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles and all the physics that controls them.
Nothing that happens is unexplainable by physics, chemistry and biology...even is much is yet to be explained.

 

[fakei]

I would like to be a fly on the wall of your thought processes.

I don't believe we are able to influence other people or change their destiny, only ours, by changing our opinions. So the world is moved by our inner work.

I am about as spiritual as a brick in the face.

Where do your ethics come from and your conscience?

My opinion of reality is of objects, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles and all the physics that controls them.
Nothing that happens is unexplainable by physics, chemistry and biology...even is much is yet to be explained.

There was a school of philosophy in ancient Greece that demonstrated that those things don't really exist, at least the way believe they do, and that our perceptions are illusions. But it looks mankind wasn't and still isn't ready to understand it.

 

[g0rph]

I don't believe we are able to influence other people or change their destiny, only ours, by changing our opinions. So the world is moved by our inner work.

That sounds entirely untrue IMO. I change my opinion...I change how the world perceives me, others act differently around me.

Where do your ethics come from and your conscience?

Logic and empathy... Empathy is a product of evolution. It made sense to be kind as we would receive kindness in return.
Logic... I have empathy for dogs and cats and wouldn't want to see them suffer, because that makes me suffer. Therefore dismissing cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc is entirely illogical and hypocritical.

There was a school of philosophy in ancient Greece that demonstrated that those things don't really exist, at least the way believe they do, and that our perceptions are illusions. But it looks mankind wasn't and still isn't ready to understand it.

Plato was an interesting man. And made interesting observations. And yes, what we see is just what we see. Our world view is extremely limited simply because of our limitations.
We only see a tiny percentage of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We only hear a tiny percentage of the frequencies of sound.
And we only feel and smell a tiny proportion of what is possible.
A dog can almost literally see smell....etc.

But it's all simply physics, chemistry and biology. And we do understand (as a species) most of it.

 

[fakei]

That sounds entirely untrue IMO. I change my opinion...I change how the world perceives me, others act differently around me.

There was a sage who said when he stopped trying to change the world and changed himself instead people around him started to change. Is this what you are referring to?
I have to be honest this is not my experience. If one changes, others don't necessarily change in the same direction.

Logic and empathy... Empathy is a product of evolution. It made sense to be kind as we would receive kindness in return.

These are spiritual, you cannot say they are material.

Logic... I have empathy for dogs and cats and wouldn't want to see them suffer, because that makes me suffer. Therefore dismissing cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc is entirely illogical and hypocritical.


Plato was an interesting man. And made interesting observations. And yes, what we see is just what we see. Our world view is extremely limited simply because of our limitations.
We only see a tiny percentage of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We only hear a tiny percentage of the frequencies of sound.
And we only feel and smell a tiny proportion of what is possible.
A dog can almost literally see smell....etc.

But it's all simply physics, chemistry and biology. And we do understand (as a species) most of it.

Was not referring to Plato or Platonism, but nevermind.

 

[g0rph]

There was a sage who said when he stopped trying to change the world and changed himself instead people around him started to change. Is this what you are referring to?
I have to be honest this is not my experience. If one changes, others don't necessarily change in the same direction.

No, not necessarily in the same direction.
But Oliver Twist and Scrooge is a good tale which shows how a positive change toward others can lead to a positive change from them to you.
If you are mean and cruel to others you will receive meanness and fright in return. If you change your ways and be kind, you are very likely to receive kindness and love in return.

These are spiritual, you cannot say they are material.

I disagree 100%
It's self preservation and the need of the genome to spread itself. Those who go on to have more children spread their genes. So those who preferred violence in the past, and died young did not spread as fast as those who preferred cooperation and lived longer.
Richard Dawkins explains this well in "The selfish gene". It's evolution 101.

Spirituality does not come into it.
In fact, what you call spirituality, I would call, possibly a path to enlightenment and inner calm.
This comes as a result of the very material, physical fact of evolution....not the other way around.

Was not referring to Plato or Platonism, but nevermind.

I didn't directly say you were, but your response brought him to mind.

 

[Lou]

It's self preservation and the need of the genome to spread itself. Those who go on to have more children spread their genes. So those who preferred violence in the past, and died young did not spread as fast as those who preferred cooperation and lived longer.
Richard Dawkins explains this well in "The selfish gene". It's evolution 101.

Yes. I love Dawkins and I liked that book, too.
As you probably already know that theory and how it connects to violence is both complex and debatable.
Darwin suggested aggressive behavior improved a species chance of surviving. And much has been said about the "killer ape theory", which is also complex and debatable.

 

[g0rph]

Yes. I love Dawkins and I liked that book, too.
As you probably already know that theory and how it connects to violence is both complex and debatable.
Darwin suggested aggressive behavior improved a species chance of surviving. And much has been said about the "killer ape theory", which is also complex and debatable.

Well indeed. It's a delicate balance. But empathy tends to be a good thing, and cooperation rather than fighting does too

Either way, we are what we are today because our ancestors, and their genes, and thus their traits...survived.

 

[fakei]

No, not necessarily in the same direction.
But Oliver Twist and Scrooge is a good tale which shows how a positive change toward others can lead to a positive change from them to you.
If you are mean and cruel to others you will receive meanness and fright in return. If you change your ways and be kind, you are very likely to receive kindness and love in return.

First let me state I agree with you that the good we do we receive, but from a different perspective with which you don't agree, the matter of fact is that doing good and being kind to others does not necessarily immediately result in reciprocity.

I disagree 100%
It's self preservation and the need of the genome to spread itself. Those who go on to have more children spread their genes. So those who preferred violence in the past, and died young did not spread as fast as those who preferred cooperation and lived longer.
Richard Dawkins explains this well in "The selfish gene". It's evolution 101.

You believe that ethics is just part of our program that was developed through evolution and is inscribed in our genes?

It's difficult to argue emotions, impulses, likes and dislikes, are not material, if we assume the materialistic view that the body exists; reason is a bit more complicated but lets assume it is the software being run.

There is however a third element, or not? The one that contemplates all these things body, emotions, thinking process as something external to itself, perceiving them, although due to prolonged identification many people are not aware of the difference; something which some would call our real self and is usually called consciousness.

Spirituality does not come into it.
In fact, what you call spirituality, I would call, possibly a path to enlightenment and inner calm.
This comes as a result of the very material, physical fact of evolution....not the other way around.

Although the two may be separated, I don't see the kind of spirituality that seeks enlightenment to be detached from ethics and reason, since since it's necessary the desire to look for the truth.

I didn't directly say you were, but your response
brought him to mind.

Not unnaturally, but is more extreme than Platonism, maybe that's why Plato tried to commit parricide.

 

[g0rph]

First let me state I agree with you that the good we do we receive, but from a different perspective with which you don't agree, the matter of fact is that doing good and being kind to others does not necessarily immediately result in reciprocity.

No, there is never a guarantee. Only statistical probability

You believe that ethics is just part of our program that was developed through evolution and is inscribed in our genes?

Indeed. It's plain to see IMO. And in the opinion of most if not all evolutionary scientists.

It's difficult to argue emotions, impulses, likes and dislikes, are not material, if we assume the materialistic view that the body exists; reason is a bit more complicated but lets assume it is the software being run.

There is however a third element, or not? The one that contemplates all these things body, emotions, thinking process as something external to itself, perceiving them, although due to prolonged identification many people are not aware of the difference; something which some would call our real self and is usually called consciousness.

Consciousness is a marvel, for sure. But we are simply biological computers if you will. It's an evolutionary advantage that most animals attained billions of years ago.

Although the two may be separated, I don't see the kind of spirituality that seeks enlightenment to be detached from ethics and reason, since since it's necessary the desire to look for the truth.

Looking for the truth is a unique trait that humans (at least unique on Earth) have. It's a bi-product of our intelligence level and a survival trait.

Basically I believe only in the maths, physics, chemistry and biology. Things that we can measure and test. Other stuff... is wish fulfillment and usually a poor attempt at filling in the gaps only.

Spiritualism IMO, is just a bad word for a particular state of mind...and applicable only to humans. To me it is simply thinking in a certain way.
And I really dislike the word as it conjures up images of the supernatural, gods, demons, angels etc...which are simply fanciful imaginations of the species homo sapiens.

Not that there is anything wrong with it as I understand it. I do meditate. I do use techniques to reduce pain that involve previous meditations and taking my own thoughts elsewhere...I am quite glad I can squeeze my thumb and forefinger together at the dentist.....


And of course I am rambling. It's Friday and I have a glass of single malt whisky...
G'night..

 

[Col]

It is good to speak to people from different countries.
Many countries and cultures have traditional roots in primarily plant-based food -
much of which has been assimilated in the last 200 years to using animals as global resources to be exploited.
This was in many cases forced on cultures to change in a very extreme way.
As an English person I apologise for my culture being guilty of this.
It is not justifed to force views.
Having a steadfast position of not harming and not abusing may not be a barrier to this, or is it in your view? There can be different approaches and ways of being plant-based or vegan.
The adjective 'extreme' about a moral view should be justified I think with evidence of what actually is the terrible thing happening.

 

[g0rph]

It is good to speak to people from different countries.
Many countries and cultures have traditional roots in primarily plant-based food -
much of which has been assimilated in the last 200 years to using animals as global resources to be exploited.
This was in many cases forced on cultures to change in a very extreme way.
As an English person I apologise for my culture being guilty of this.

As an English person too I take issue with this.
I really dislike apologies for things ancestors did that you personally would object to.
I feel no guilt for the slavery, empire building and crusading that England did...so I have no need to apologise.
I'm often embarrassed by my cultural peers, for sure. And I don't have the same idiotic nationalistic pride that many knuckle draggers do.

It is not justifed to force views.

Far too much a generalisation. We do force views...rightfully so. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong etc. Laws are forced views.

 

[Col]

If a

As an English person too I take issue with this.
I really dislike apologies for things ancestors did that you personally would object to.
I feel no guilt for the slavery, empire building and crusading that England did...so I have no need to apologise.
I'm often embarrassed by my cultural peers, for sure. And I don't have the same idiotic nationalistic pride that many knuckle draggers do.


Far too much a generalisation. We do force views...rightfully so. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong etc. Laws are forced views.

If a culture and language has been wiped out what happened to their laws? What about laws of respecting nature? We have the UN giving humans freedom of belief., that is nice we can think and have a right to. The problem for non-human animals in particular is the actions of humans.

 

[g0rph]

If a

If a culture and language has been wiped out what happened to their laws?

Some cultures (and laws) historically have overtaken others. It's been the case in most of human history.

What about laws of respecting nature? We have the UN giving humans freedom of belief., that is nice we can think and have a right to. The problem for non-human animals in particular is the actions of humans.

Indeed.
I'm not saying I agree with the status quo.

 

[Vegana Misantropia]

As a nomadic person, I do speak with people from most of the world, and I have found that some vegans are very extreme in their approach toward meat-eating people.
And as a vegan myself, I choose to be vegan and live by my philosophy that it is the right thing for me in my life.
But I think it is correct to let others decide what they want to eat.

I just watched a YouTube discussion between vegans and meat-eaters, and was shocked how extreme the vegans were, whereas the meat-eaters said time and time again, "I respect your choice to be a vegan" but non of the vegans said anything about the choice the meat-eaters has, except for "You have a choice to not eat meat"

Is it common for the vegan community to be very one-sided in its way of thinking?

This OP is not meant to step on anyone, vegans or meat-eaters. It is only a question that I have been thinking of.

Personally, I am incapable of respecting anyone who isn't vegan. After all, what would make someone respect a murderer or someone who abuses humans, for example? If that murderer is a member of your own family, it's at the very least disappointing to be connected to someone with such distorted values.
To me, the idea that you can be vegan without expecting others to be vegan as well is completely contrary to veganism. Veganism is an abolitionist philosophy that opposes the exploitation of non-human animals for any purpose.
When this issue is raised, it becomes clear that the person asking that question does not see other animals as individuals, but merely as inferior beings at the mercy of human taste and pleasure.

 

[g0rph]

Personally, I am incapable of respecting anyone who isn't vegan.

So have you always been vegan?
If not, did you consider yourself a good person before?
I feel sorry for you for "I am incapable of respecting anyone who isn't vegan". What a miserable existence you must lead.

After all, what would make someone respect a murderer or someone who abuses humans, for example?

There is a huge difference.
Cultures change over the centuries.
What was considered moral 2000+ years ago is no longer. Murder has been considered wrong for a long time. It's part of our global culture.

If that murderer is a member of your own family, it's at the very least disappointing to be connected to someone with such distorted values.

Of course

To me, the idea that you can be vegan without expecting others to be vegan as well is completely contrary to veganism.

Wanting. Hoping. Not expecting. To go against cultural norms is difficult, very difficult. So no, it is not contrary to not expect.
For me personally it was an epiphany. A red pill moment. You can't expect that everyone will have that.

Veganism is an abolitionist philosophy that opposes the exploitation of non-human animals for any purpose.

No it isn't.
Not wanting to bring up carnist arguments, but we do kill animals all the time for the plants we eat. We also allow for medicines and for instances where there is no choice.
We also exploit bees for many of the crops that vegans gladly eat.

When this issue is raised, it becomes clear that the person asking that question does not see other animals as individuals, but merely as inferior beings at the mercy of human taste and pleasure.

I disagree. Some people might see it this way. Most do not.
Cognitive dissonance and the very real problem of social acceptance means that many people who would gladly be vegan if it was the norm, are not.

 

[ewomack]

Compassion remains important. Likely the vast majority of people who eat meat are doing it purely out of habit and have had no exposure to other ways of thinking or being. They aren't trying to do harm, be evil, or murder anything. They are unaware. They are uneducated about the food system, the intelligence of animals, etc. To accuse them of being heartless murderers will just drive them away and validate their assumptions about "militant vegans." Thus validated, nothing will change. If you want to change the world and change people's thoughts and habits, it takes middle ground compassion, tolerance, negotiation, and patience. Abolitionism, though I definitely have sympathies with it, doesn't usually work.

Though not a perfect analogy, the abolition movement did not stop slavery in the United States. Many considered abolitionists extremists. Abraham Lincoln did not publicly advocate for abolitionism. If he had, his own party would not have made him a presidential candidate. He took a middle ground and ultimately succeeded, though not without controversy, in abolishing slavery. Yes, it took a lot of horrific violence and many people suffered during the interim. But slavery did end (the horrors of Reconstruction are another story). An abolitionist candidate would have lost the 1860 election and likely allowed slavery to continue longer. Lincoln wasn't a perfect human being, but he was a savvy politician. Veganism doesn't need a John Brown, it needs a Lincoln.

And to say that compassion and patience will just lead to more suffering, there is truth in that, but I also don't see abolitionism as accomplishing anything but prolonging the status quo indefinitely. I'll take potential temporary suffering over potential prolonged indefinite suffering. If the goal is to actually get people to stop consuming animal products, more of a middle ground is needed. Compassion is vital.