Fish Bird Man

Nope, not talking X-men. In the comments @ Intellectuelle Chong gave a riddle:

The complimentarian/egalitarian debate often distinguishes between essence and function, but I wonder how meaningful the distinction really is. Here’s a simplified example: birds fly, fish swim, and human beings think (reason). Is the function of rational thinking economic or ontological?

I didn’t want to give Chong’s riddle short shrift…been thinking of how to reduce the answer. On the basis of all three examples being created beings I dismissed the conclusions that could be made about God, but in looking at it standing upon its own two legs ( o, forgive the poor pun) I felt the final answer would go like this:

Is the function of rational thinking economic or ontological? It rises from the ontological and manifests ( directs or works) in the economic.

An other could not see the process until it manifested in the economic sense. Although the self would be aware.

But in the analogy, wouldn’t it more follow that man walks upright? They do what they were physically made to do. All three think in an instinctual manner, but only man has the reasoning of rational thought, which sets him apart. Determinists have their explanations for everything but the rational thought, I believe.

Not that I think it is topic to go off like this, but it is fun. I probably got myself into trouble here.

One thought on “Fish Bird Man”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.