Which answer? To what question? Sorry, A_perfect_lady, I'm really not trying to be cute here, I'm just confused by your replies. I didn't see any "answers," just speculations about whether some animals have souls, etc.
But again, if that is your answer, what was the question? (I don't recall having asked about animal souls.)
Let's try again.
...since we seem to have reached an impasse.
It seems to me the basic difficulty is both of us have pretty much the same set of "facts" before us, and yet we draw radically different conclusions from those facts, conclusions so sweeping that they effectively constitute — or should I say reflect? — a "worldview." How to account for this?
Trial answer: Possibly you and I are looking at the problem from different perspectival "levels." It is difficult to describe this situation. But there's a marvelous analogy in Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe (a/k/a multiverse) model.
The linked paper classifies different "species" of multiverse theories at four levels. The fourth is Tegmark's own proposal (I gather). And I find it brilliant. He proceeds by analogies, populating his Level IV model with "birds" and "frogs," the representatives of Plato and Aristotle respectively:
ARISTOTELIAN PARADIGM: The subjectively perceived frog perspective is physically real, and the bird perspective and all its mathematical language is merely a useful approximation.You can't get more "basic" questions than that! LOLOL!
PLATONIC PARADIGM: The bird perspective (the mathematical structure) is physically real, and the frog perspective and all the human language we use to describe it is merely a useful approximation for describing our subjective perceptions.
What is more basic — the frog perspective or the bird perspective? What is more basic — human language or mathematical language?
Trial answer: One is not "better" than the other. This is not a true/false proposition; it is a BOTH are valid in their respective domains proposition. And Natural Law theory is premised on their intimate correspondence.
Me, I tend to be "birdlike." In practice, this means that one tries always to "fly to the highest point," and look down on problems "from there." The problem with that is, the higher the bird flies, the more detail "below" fades away. Yet strangely, what emerges next in the bird's view is pattern.
Meanwhile, the frogs "down there" are masters of detail. They don't seem to be particularly interested in "pattern." Or to put it yet another way, the important thing for them is that something "works," not that it "means" anything.
But you know what? It seems to me that both perspectives are entirely valid within their respective domains. They are not "mutually-exclusive," but essentially complementary. Indeed, it seems to me the world of Truth emerges (evolves?) from their mutually productive, dynamic synergy.
Dear A_perfect_lady, I don't know whether you would align yourself with either the "birds" or the "frogs." Or would even consider doing such a thing.
Thank you ever so much for conversing with me!
p.s.: I hope you don't mind, but I invited a few friends to this post, thinking they might be interested in our topic.
I thought you were asking me for some sort of clarification of the nature of empathy and how to recognize it. Or something along those lines.