If someone devotes a significant part of their life to affectionately caring for plastic flowers, there is something wrong with them. Not so in the case of real, living plants. This points to me to the idea that life as such, and not just conscious life or the life of animals, is a valuable thing.
I don’t want to say that it’s always bad to affectionately care for artifacts. When the artifacts have an intimate and significant connection with human beings, as in the case of a chair that grandma made or a work of art, such affectionate care can make sense. But having an affectionate care for plants makes sense even in the absence of a connection to human beings.
What about microscopic forms of life? Can it make sense to fondly feed a bacterium? I think so, but I agree that the case is less clear.
2 comments:
Maybe it is because plastic flowers do not respond to water or sunshine. Maybe we can say that for a house, someone has spent considerable effort into making the house look nice and tidy. It does not seem to me like they have something wrong with them. Maybe in one of the rooms, there is a plastic flower in it. Making sure that plastic flower still looks neat doesn't seem crazy. However, maybe one can say that one cannot replace the real plant, while one can replace the plastic plant. However, could one replace the house as well?
It's not just care--it's _affectionate_ care. And, yes, I am troubled by the idea of someone having affectionate care for a non-living thing like a house, unless that house has some special connection with specific people (which a house often does).
Post a Comment