Alexwein,

How much of human interaction/reaction is unawarness and how much is indifference could be vital to the well being of an individual or a population. Nature you say is nature, nature is unaware not indifferent, indifference infers awareness of, but disinterest in, a human quality, Though unwarness to is a human quality as humanity is part of said nature, it is in identification of the nature of these two possiabilities that there is potential of the therapeutic.

Hi Boagie,

Thanks for the reply. That's quite a cigar you have in that photo (if that is you!).

I'm not so concerned with unawareness, though there is perhaps some culpability there, ethically speaking, as well. An argument might be made that way in some instances. But indifference in its definition and usage already implies awareness. You can't be 'indifferent' to something you are unaware of. Unawareness is a different issue with different possible solutions.

I only made the nature comment because it was being circulated in the thread. Nature is not indifferent, nor really unaware. Nature is a concept, and I think both of those descriptors are not appropriate when talking about something abstract. When you talk about specific beings within nature, that make up 'nature,' such as plants, animals, humans, whatever, you can start to talk about those qualities, as they apply.

Anyway, my work concerns human indifference as it pertains to human action. I'm exploring the underlying causes (through exploring what people say about it, not by making guesses or using psychological theories to explain it, though they are at times relevant in helping to understand it.), as well as the behavior and its impact. I'm definitely less of a analytic philosopher and more an ethicist, I suppose, if you had to define my interests.

Thanks again for the reply!