Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_z0zpb0 in philosophy
Desire_of_Flesh t1_ixiguq2 wrote
What Life is.
The prevailing physicalism of the modern era describes life as a system. A system is defined a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.
However, to define life as a system is try to explain with something that needs to be explained.
A living thing is understood as a being whose parts work together for one goal, which is the sustainment of the whole organism. In this sense, the parts comprise truly one being, as this principle that unites the parts is intrinsic to the organism.
However, a machine is not a one being as much as a heap of sand is not a one being, as its goal, function is imparted from the outside. Its principle of unity is extrinsic, its unity is in the perceiver's mind, not in-itself.
Therefore, we can say that a machine is only a metaphor, something that resembles life but not quite.
If this is the case, why are we defining life based on the thing that life is giving meaning to? This does not make sense.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments