Are rocks alive?

[Rosewin]

This was an interesting discussion we had in chat and thought I would let everyone else voice in. What do you believe? Instead of tainting the answers by giving mine, with some agreeing or disagreeing I would rather everyone simply give their beliefs.

In the Anishinaabe language a grammatical distinction is made between animate and inanimate genders rather than masculine and feminine genders.

Just as the English languages makes a distinction between male and female persons, using different pronouns (“he” and “she”), and different possessives (“hers” and “his”), so in the unnamed old man’s native tongue he would distinguish between animate persons and inanimate objects.

Well, it’s true that so too do English speakers: we have personal and impersonal pronouns. Human beings and pets (at least) can be either “she” or “he” but tables and rocks are “it”.

The French extend the masculine and feminine genders to tables, chairs and other objects that would be called “it” in English. So, Hallowell might have asked a French Canadienne, “are all tables female?”, just as he asked the Anishinaabe elder, “Are all rocks alive?”

The point of the question is to try to understand the animist worldview and life-way that is expressed by and in the way the language moulds and expresses ideas and knowledges.

In the old man’s mother-tongue, rocks are animate. How far does this Anishinaabe animism go? Are rocks really alive or is it just a linguistic conceit? Hallowell wanted to know if this was something deliberate in the old man’s understanding or if it was just a peculiarity of an inherited language.

In his answer the old man slowly unfolded his knowledge to the anthropologist who was asking the wrong question. “No, but some are”, he told Hallowell. When you read the full story you’ll see that what he meant was that the issue for animists really isn’t whether all rocks are alive or even whether it really makes sense to talk about hedgehogs or oaks as “persons” or “people”.

The important question isn’t a philosophical abstraction. Rather, the vital question for the old man was, “How do we engage respectfully with rocks?” You see, generally speaking, rocks are animate, they are “persons” in the sense that the language marks them as such – just as French marks tables as feminine.

But whether French people treat tables as female or not (whatever that would mean!), the Anishinaabe man treated some rocks as his neighbours, living beings or people who lived near him. He told stories about rocks with whom (note the pronoun) he and others related in specific ways. These relationships involved different degrees of intimacy, different actions, and they were tested by different encounters and experiences.

It’s important to note that most of the time Anishinaabeg people treat rocks in much the same way that Europeans do. They walk on them, throw them, make things from them.

Admittedly, Anishinaabeg are likely to offer rocks a gift of tobacco or other herbs before using them. But, generally speaking, just because rocks are persons doesn’t mean you have to greet each one every day.

See, it’s just like humanists: just because they respect other humans doesn’t mean they shake hands with everyone they see, most often they show respect by giving others space in which to be themselves.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-fait...s-alive-respect

[Godsnmbr1]

I take it you're not asking a for a literal, dictionary-based answer, correct? Personally, I have to say no. A rock exists as pure reaction, with no choice. In my opinion, life must have the ability to choose--even if it's on the molecular level.

[Meiliken]

I take it you're not asking a for a literal, dictionary-based answer, correct? Personally, I have to say no. A rock exists as pure reaction, with no choice. In my opinion, life must have the ability to choose--even if it's on the molecular level.

There are technically some guidelines that anything must have to be considered alive.

1. Consumes

2. Leaves waste

3. Grows

4. Reproduces

5. Gets born

6. Dies

With these parameters, technically a fire can be alive. A rock doesn't consume, leave waste, grow, reproduce, get born, or die. So no, rocks are not alive. Fire maybe? Fire follows all those guidelines. Food for thought.

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

There are technically some guidelines that anything must have to be considered alive.

1. Consumes

2. Leaves waste

3. Grows

4. Reproduces

5. Gets born

6. Dies

With these parameters, technically a fire can be alive. A rock doesn't consume, leave waste, grow, reproduce, get born, or die. So no, rocks are not alive. Fire maybe? Fire follows all those guidelines. Food for thought.

Technically the Earth by these guidelines is alive and this includes rocks too.

1: Earth consumes solar radiation and heat from the sun.

2: The Earth leaves waste when volcanoes spew toxic gas and ash.

3: The Earth collects tons of material that pierce the atmosphere thus growing.

4: The Earth reproduced life.... Us and everything else 'alive'.

5: The Earth was born when our sun caught extrasolar material from a nearby star in orbit which grouped together and eventually formed the planet.

6: The Earth will die in 4 billion years when it is vaporized by the sun turning all red giant on us.

By your parameters the entire universe is one giant living organism of which we are a part of.

[Leonardo]

My own opinion of beliefs such as the one described are that the objects are a physical symbol for an unobservable 'force' or 'spirit'. They gain their animation through this association and, over time, become the force or spirit they signify - in the eyes of the belief.

So, a rock is just a rock, but it symbolises this 'spirit of earth/rock' in the belief. The rock is not alive, the spirit of rock is - again, within the tenet of the belief.

[fullywired]

My own opinion of beliefs such as the one described are that the objects are a physical symbol for an unobservable 'force' or 'spirit'. They gain their animation through this association and, over time, become the force or spirit they signify - in the eyes of the belief.

So, a rock is just a rock, but it symbolises this 'spirit of earth/rock' in the belief. The rock is not alive, the spirit of rock is - again, within the tenet of the belief.

According to Julie Andrews "The hills are alive"

fullywired

[Leonardo]

According to Julie Andrews "The hills are alive"

fullywired

Thanks, FW, now I've got that annoying song reverberating through my head!

[eight bits]

Well, I wouldn't get too bound up in merely grammatical gender. Even in English, native speakers will refer to boats as "she" and warships as "he." There is often even a battle of the sexes over cars: all those girls who curl their lips at boys who call their cars "she."

Definitions of "life" often suffer from failure to distinguish living things from other processes that play out over time (like fire) or what engines do, whether artificial or natural (the heat engine of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, or its vulcanism).

Formal definitions are, of course, exactly true - they establish some category. In common with natural language definitions, they are useful or not, they carve out an interesting swath of stuff and exclude the rest, or fail to do so, more than true or false.

In some contexts, it is useful to distiguish how things are with rocks from how things are with inanimate objects. In other contexts, not so much. When someone says that in contrast with the Earth, the Moon is "dead," it is often not just that there are no natives up there, but no atmosphere, water, nor volcanoes either.

A really hard case is viruses, which may slip back and forth within the same conversational context between the living and inanimate side of the ledger.

Life is a human category, not an objective or necessary category. It serves human purposes to make categories, and the purposes vary with the individual people, topic of conversation, and the care with which someone speaks. And there's always figurative speech (one mines the "mother lode," as if a life process is at work - and yes, that infernal song...aaargh.).

Are rocks alive? Yes and no. As is the answer to just about every question of the form "Do X's have Y-ness?" in natural language.

Do rocks have Buddha-nature? Now there's a question .

Edited March 24, 2009 by eight bits

[Mac E]

I think it would be benifical to specify what type of rock you think would be alive, as all rocks have varying compositions and thus various types of reactions (chemical and physical). Also important to note is that the lifetime of a rock is much much longer then the lifetime of a human. So the perspective cannot be the same.

[Lilly]

I'm not convinced that rocks are alive...but they do make great pets! (<click for link)

[The Silver Thong]

I'm not convinced that rocks are alive...but they do make great pets! (<click for link)

That was such a great idea the pet rock. I'm going to be comming out this spring with a new line of pet sticks, hey you never know, might catch on

[MysticOnion]

They are alive if you want them to be.

[The Silver Thong]

They are alive if you want them to be.

No more alive than my teddy bear but hey, the imagination is a wonderful thing and people have been giving inanimate objects living characteristics for ever.

[=Jak=]

moving property and immovable property. Both are valued.

In our country, the rock or the statue made of rock worshiped as god.

Each stone has its own vibration and energy. mars and venus.

Moon able to rotate fast than any other planet, but saturn is the slowest. Some are very sensible, and few are very slow.

Edited March 24, 2009 by =Jak=

[archangel_josh]

This was an interesting discussion we had in chat and thought I would let everyone else voice in. What do you believe? Instead of tainting the answers by giving mine, with some agreeing or disagreeing I would rather everyone simply give their beliefs.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-fait...s-alive-respect

No, rocks are not alive.

But its good to question these things!

You know, a woman was in love with the Berlin Wall and married it. For serious:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...r-29-years.html

And another married the Eiffel Tower:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ffel-Tower.html

AND a man who has sexual relations with his CAR!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-1000-cars.html

So are rocks alive? No. But object fetishism is - like how when you were a kid you thought your doll was alive.

-Josh

[WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT]

I dont think rocks are alive, because they cant die..... But they do hold energy. And energy can be associated to them. Just my Opinion.

[Samuronin]

Are Rocks Alive??

NO!!!!

[Pal101]

Technically the Earth by these guidelines is alive and this includes rocks too.

1: Earth consumes solar radiation and heat from the sun.

2: The Earth leaves waste when volcanoes spew toxic gas and ash.

3: The Earth collects tons of material that pierce the atmosphere thus growing.

4: The Earth reproduced life.... Us and everything else 'alive'.

5: The Earth was born when our sun caught extrasolar material from a nearby star in orbit which grouped together and eventually formed the planet.

6: The Earth will die in 4 billion years when it is vaporized by the sun turning all red giant on us.

By your parameters the entire universe is one giant living organism of which we are a part of.

Destruction alone is not death. Also it directly does not use the enrgy it consumes.

[Omnaka]

I dont think rocks are alive, because they cant die..... But they do hold energy. And energy can be associated to them. Just my Opinion.

The next logical question would be, is energy alive?IMO

Love Omnaka

[deepislandboy]

What says that those 6 laws (must die, reproduce, etc) are the only factors that make life? That could be life as we (humans) know it. I think that there could be numerous forms of life all around, vested in anything....including rocks.

[D1CKY D1AMOND]

Destruction alone is not death. Also it directly does not use the enrgy it consumes.

Destruction is an end. Death is an end. When your body stops it starts to decay and destroys itself and after is transforms into other types of matter and energies.

The universe was born and it will die eventually just like we will.... Rocks included.

Once you break everything down it is all the same everything is made out of energy that's as old as the universe. If you could see things the way I do you would quickly realize that the definition of life is trivial since every thing in the universe from stars, rocks, gasses and you are all connected at the subatomic level. Whether you personally are alive or dead it makes no difference that energy still remains to serve another purpose whatever that may be. All creatures spawned on the globe are trillions of years old.

[WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT]

The next logical question would be, is energy alive?IMO

Love Omnaka

You had me think it one more level... (so early for this, and only one cup of coffee lol)

And Id have to say that energy is alive, IF, we compare it to us "living" crreatures that are made of energy, not to be confused with spirit which IMo is seperate.

But would one dare to call an atom sitting in some nucular power plant an "alive" thing? I wont se the word "being"....

But once the living being dies that energy also dies. Again not to confuse it with spirit, which IMO never dies.

But I still cant equate it to a dead thing like a rock.

It reminds me of when God reated Adam and made him from dust,dirt,sand,rock which ever you choose to call the earth. He also wasnt alive till he was given the "Nepish", but again, that equates to spirit and not energy. But once made alive with the breath, he was then complete and also became alive.

I think its a catch 22.. what came first the chicken or the egg?

Can Energy be called the same as spirit or are they seperate? I think very much seperate, but in need of each other perhaps (absolutly)....

Blessings...

[Beckys_Mom]

They are alive with the sound of music...la lal alal...ohh wait thats the hills are alive LMAO my mistake ... i'll tell ya something though...if you were to stand in the line of fire when a bunch of people are throwing rocks at you...you may not be alive after it...LMAO I can now hear that classic quote from - Life Of Brian - He said JEHOVAH!!!! ducking for cover LMAO love it...just love it

Ok on a serious note..I doubt very much rocks are alive...well not unless you count the 3rd rock from the sun...taa daaa it's a alive and kicking oopss I mean spinning lol

Edited March 26, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[HKCavalier]

“How do we engage respectfully with rocks?”

This chat with the old man only scratches the surface of the animist world view as I know it. I think, for westerners the alive/dead dichotomy is just too distracting, the categories too absolute, too central to our psycho-cultural identity. After all, to an animist the dead are not "dead" in the sense westerners usually mean, and "people" are those beings with which we have, to use a very western cultural concept, a "social contract." What do we, as people, owe in respect to the beings of the earth--alive, dead, whatever?

The western concept of God, of the sacred, is fundamentally at odds with animism. The western concept of God is mainly obsessed with agency and actions, just as our concept of self is--we obsess over why God does what He does, or neglects to do this or that. Who gets the credit and who the blame? Who deserves the reward or the punishment? But animism is not generally concerned with a God that is "in charge" of us or "neglects" us--to the animist this is at best a childish conception of universal consciousness, at worst, it is perverse, deranged and can lead only to destruction and disease.

To move our thinking away from these treacherous and absolute categories, these disempowered and impersonal values, it might be helpful to shift the question from "are rocks alive?" to "do rocks have wisdom to impart?" What makes rocks "alive" or "animate" to an animist is the awareness one perceives in the rock, what the rock has to teach us, its essential meaning. Animism is a system of thought which holds that everything that is has meaning. Every encounter we have with the outside world is a meeting, a contract, and we either honor that contract or we don't. Everything that comes into our lives, comes to us with a purpose, with a message. The central question being: "What is that message?"

[Cimber]

The guidelines posted on here aren't even the correct guidelines biologists follow when categorizing whether something is alive or not.

The most vital attribute (held by most biologists and the opinion I, myself, hold) when determining whether something is alive or not seems to be the ability to form membranes, otherwise known as compartmentalization.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Cimber