thomas> --- Kendall Clark <kendall at monkeyfist.com> wrote:
thomas> <<Actually, Singer spends a lot of time showing that life
thomas> itself, per se, is *not* "sacred" or precious>>.
thomas> Well, "sacredness" is not, in my usage, a transcendental
thomas> term. It is an attitude which I choose to adopt.
Fine. But, based on what you say below, I have very little idea about what cognitive content this attitude has for you.
thomas> "higher" purpose than just living. But what about living
thomas> and being...isn't there something sacred about that?
Well, if you mean to say that existing is better than not existing, per se, I'm not sure. In some cases existing is better than not; I'd certainly like to continue doing so. In other cases, people reach other conclusions.
thomas> in spite of his knowlege of human pain, suffering and joy,
thomas> "descends" (or maybe ascends) into the turmoil of being
thomas> alive. That's sacred.
Sorry, that doesn't clarify what you mean, in my view. At any rate, whatever you mean by 'sacred', the view that Singer argues against seems rather different, so it's probably moot.
Best, Kendall Clark