I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:41 pmAshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:11 pm I was only aiming my comment at explicit philosophical systems like that of Gramsci, not any specific interactions with non-humans. Specifically I was generally agreeing with this:
Gramsci wrote:‘The idea of “objective” in metaphysical materialism would appear to mean an objectivity that exists even apart from man; but when one affirms that a reality would exist even if man did not, one is either speaking metaphorically, or one is falling into a form of mysticism. We know reality only in relation to man, and since man is historical becoming, knowledge and reality are also a becoming and so is objectivity..’ (446)
And I disagree with Gramsci. Western philosophy starts from 'gnothi seauton', which in the epistemic translation "know thyself" does not assume that "man" is known. Replace "man" with "sentient being", and Gramsci's argument can start to make better sense. Finnish etc. translation of 'gnothi seauton' is not epistemic, gnosis is sentient: feel thyself.
As I tried to say, meaning of "human" is not universal among the sentient beings that Western science biologically categorizes as "human species". Among what I suppose you refer to as "human species" with "human experience", there is no full consensus what those terms refer to and mean and how and where their extend among various costumes of the spirit. In many indigenous languages "human" refers only/mostly/by degree to members of a same tribe, and in various degrees less to sentient beings who are not members of the tribe, and those degrees don't necessarily depend from how Western science categorizes species.It does not make sense to speak of a metaphysics which starts from anything other than human experience. We may eventually incorporate some aspects of non-human experience as phenomenon which are relevant, but the starting point remains the human experience of the world, including the human experience of animals in the world. If we imagine that we are starting from anything other than human experience, then we are fooling ourselves.
A dog can be a family member and more closely shared perspective than other sentient beings including other biological humans who are not members of the same family, regardless of biological species. Human children also often associate very closely with spirits that are in West commonly called "imaginary friends". And in non-Western perspectives, children are not always lectured by materialistic authority that their "imaginary" friends "are not real".
My point is simply, we have no consensus definition of what is "human experience", so the claimed necessity of starting from something we can't assume is a fully/highly shared perspective, becomes moot.
So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?
I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.