The "carrots" he is talking about can be viewed metaphorically, but he literally is talking about carrots, which is supposed to be kind of ironic. Carrots are technically living, they might even have a soul, but that doesn't matter when it comes to their harvest - they are eaten by species that are higher in the food chain. If life did not feed on life, then all life would die.
The irony of "carrots" is that they obviously do not have a nervous system, and to the best of our scientific knowledge, they do not feel pain or suffering or anything at all.
But if we do not care about carrots, why should we care about flies and insects either? Flies have a very simple nervous system, and arguably, they do not feel any complex amount of pain.
If we do not care about the flies, then why care about the birds who eat the flies? Birds have a relatively simple nervous system, and they most likely do not feel any complex amount of pain.
But if we do not care about the birds, then why care about the cats that eat the birds? And why care about the dogs that eat the cats? The deer that eat the grass? The pigs that eat their own shit? The humans that eat the pigs?
Pain is just a sensation - an electric signal sent along a sequence of organic tissue that is all essentially composed of just ordinary matter: single molecules; protons, electrons, neutrons, etc..
All of which ultimately feels nothing, and the sensation of pain was hollow and empty..
It would seem that this song (as well as the entire album) presents us the duality that They/He/It (whether it was Maynard, other members of the band, or just Tool in general) has been afflicted with - the paradox of morality. How can we claim to be for good and against evil, and how can we claim to be righteous, if we have to inflict pain on an innumerable amount of other creatures simply in order to survive?
What if it turned out that we were all unknowingly on a farm as well, and aliens came to Earth one day to harvest us -- and feed not on our flesh, but torture us and feed on the tragedy produced from our cries of agony and torment?
Without that tragedy to feed on, the aliens would enter a state of unbearable nihilism due to the lack of any purpose - but when they torture us, it reminds of them of the temporary nature of existence, even their own, and the ultimate mortality of all things. It makes them thankful to exist. Without it, they would die.
Was there ever a difference between these hypothetical aliens and the species (whatever it may have been, the song suggests rabbits) that ate the carrots?
Where do we draw the line between right and wrong? There is no possible way to draw an absolute line between "when it is right, and when it is wrong", since right and wrong are relative to their observer. Morality is a human invention. But subjectivity does not necessarily imply fallibility. The notions of "right and wrong" exist, because we make them exist - but that is it.
However, considering morality in the case of humanity alone and amongst itself, it can be stated as a fact that our survival requires some degree of unconditional cooperation with each other. Mothers have to love their baby and feed their baby, or else their baby dies. Members of society have to cooperate with each other, or else humanity's more complex desires (such as the arts, technology, higher knowledge, science, etc) would be impossible to achieve. You're reading this on a computer right now. Do you know how to make a computer from scratch? I don't mean buying the parts and putting it together - I mean harvesting the raw resources from bare earth with your bare hands and no tools besides what you can find for yourself, and then assembling those resources into a computer? I highly doubt anyone on this planet is capable of that. Your charade of a lifestyle automatically drafts you as a member of society's morals and ethics.
Do morals and ethics get out-dated from time to time? Yes. Do we need to revise them? Yes. It's far from perfect, and its highly unlikely it will ever reach perfection. All you can do is find out for yourself through experience what YOU think is the best way to improve the world, and then REPRESENT these ideals of yours by integrating them into your individual persona.
It is NOT possible to predict these changes/fluctuations in morality and ethics by using logical sciences and measurements alone. There are too many variables involved in the fine-tuning of morality, and breaking it down mathematically is impossible, and even if we could do it, the results would be beyond human comprehension.
You have to use your intuition gained from experience in conjunction with logical sciences and measurements in order to come up with the best representation you can. Many people do not know it, but most people are already finely-synchronized with morality via their intuition, and they do not even have to worry about it - the perceived disruption occurs when individuals try to exploit the rhetoric and structure of morality for their own personal gain that is unrelated to morality.
So to basically sum it all up:
Based on our subjective experiences, we must use our intuition to participate (with as much effort as we care to put into it) in refining society's morality to resolve to see what we perceive to be its current flaws. When we do this, our persistence and humility will eventually bring us to satisfactory results that we can at least be content with. Some people have it easier than others - and from my perspective, yes, it is morally correct to crash these types of people down whenever they are acting cocky to someone who has to deal with more than them. Maybe that isn't the same for you, maybe it is, and that's the beauty of it I guess.
Our experience here will be worthwhile - but that doesn't mean you are automatically guaranteed satisfactory without having to work for it at a level past your comfort zone.
We can improve our lives, to whatever extent we allow ourselves to.
However, it is unknown whether or not we can improve the state of all humanity.
This might be as good as it gets as far as our world goes, but that's only because society can't hold everyone's hand and wipe their asses for them - they know themselves the best, and only they know how to fulfill their needs the best. The sky is the limit for improving our own lives, because whatever you consider the definition of "improvement" to be is up to you..
Wow this is a long ass comment okay I'm done. There's Tool in a nutshell for you ladies and gentlemen
The "carrots" he is talking about can be viewed metaphorically, but he literally is talking about carrots, which is supposed to be kind of ironic. Carrots are technically living, they might even have a soul, but that doesn't matter when it comes to their harvest - they are eaten by species that are higher in the food chain. If life did not feed on life, then all life would die. The irony of "carrots" is that they obviously do not have a nervous system, and to the best of our scientific knowledge, they do not feel pain or suffering or anything at all. But if we do not care about carrots, why should we care about flies and insects either? Flies have a very simple nervous system, and arguably, they do not feel any complex amount of pain. If we do not care about the flies, then why care about the birds who eat the flies? Birds have a relatively simple nervous system, and they most likely do not feel any complex amount of pain. But if we do not care about the birds, then why care about the cats that eat the birds? And why care about the dogs that eat the cats? The deer that eat the grass? The pigs that eat their own shit? The humans that eat the pigs? Pain is just a sensation - an electric signal sent along a sequence of organic tissue that is all essentially composed of just ordinary matter: single molecules; protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.. All of which ultimately feels nothing, and the sensation of pain was hollow and empty..
It would seem that this song (as well as the entire album) presents us the duality that They/He/It (whether it was Maynard, other members of the band, or just Tool in general) has been afflicted with - the paradox of morality. How can we claim to be for good and against evil, and how can we claim to be righteous, if we have to inflict pain on an innumerable amount of other creatures simply in order to survive?
What if it turned out that we were all unknowingly on a farm as well, and aliens came to Earth one day to harvest us -- and feed not on our flesh, but torture us and feed on the tragedy produced from our cries of agony and torment? Without that tragedy to feed on, the aliens would enter a state of unbearable nihilism due to the lack of any purpose - but when they torture us, it reminds of them of the temporary nature of existence, even their own, and the ultimate mortality of all things. It makes them thankful to exist. Without it, they would die.
Was there ever a difference between these hypothetical aliens and the species (whatever it may have been, the song suggests rabbits) that ate the carrots?
Where do we draw the line between right and wrong? There is no possible way to draw an absolute line between "when it is right, and when it is wrong", since right and wrong are relative to their observer. Morality is a human invention. But subjectivity does not necessarily imply fallibility. The notions of "right and wrong" exist, because we make them exist - but that is it.
However, considering morality in the case of humanity alone and amongst itself, it can be stated as a fact that our survival requires some degree of unconditional cooperation with each other. Mothers have to love their baby and feed their baby, or else their baby dies. Members of society have to cooperate with each other, or else humanity's more complex desires (such as the arts, technology, higher knowledge, science, etc) would be impossible to achieve. You're reading this on a computer right now. Do you know how to make a computer from scratch? I don't mean buying the parts and putting it together - I mean harvesting the raw resources from bare earth with your bare hands and no tools besides what you can find for yourself, and then assembling those resources into a computer? I highly doubt anyone on this planet is capable of that. Your charade of a lifestyle automatically drafts you as a member of society's morals and ethics. Do morals and ethics get out-dated from time to time? Yes. Do we need to revise them? Yes. It's far from perfect, and its highly unlikely it will ever reach perfection. All you can do is find out for yourself through experience what YOU think is the best way to improve the world, and then REPRESENT these ideals of yours by integrating them into your individual persona. It is NOT possible to predict these changes/fluctuations in morality and ethics by using logical sciences and measurements alone. There are too many variables involved in the fine-tuning of morality, and breaking it down mathematically is impossible, and even if we could do it, the results would be beyond human comprehension. You have to use your intuition gained from experience in conjunction with logical sciences and measurements in order to come up with the best representation you can. Many people do not know it, but most people are already finely-synchronized with morality via their intuition, and they do not even have to worry about it - the perceived disruption occurs when individuals try to exploit the rhetoric and structure of morality for their own personal gain that is unrelated to morality.
So to basically sum it all up: Based on our subjective experiences, we must use our intuition to participate (with as much effort as we care to put into it) in refining society's morality to resolve to see what we perceive to be its current flaws. When we do this, our persistence and humility will eventually bring us to satisfactory results that we can at least be content with. Some people have it easier than others - and from my perspective, yes, it is morally correct to crash these types of people down whenever they are acting cocky to someone who has to deal with more than them. Maybe that isn't the same for you, maybe it is, and that's the beauty of it I guess. Our experience here will be worthwhile - but that doesn't mean you are automatically guaranteed satisfactory without having to work for it at a level past your comfort zone.
We can improve our lives, to whatever extent we allow ourselves to. However, it is unknown whether or not we can improve the state of all humanity. This might be as good as it gets as far as our world goes, but that's only because society can't hold everyone's hand and wipe their asses for them - they know themselves the best, and only they know how to fulfill their needs the best. The sky is the limit for improving our own lives, because whatever you consider the definition of "improvement" to be is up to you..
Wow this is a long ass comment okay I'm done. There's Tool in a nutshell for you ladies and gentlemen
@SpunkySkunk347 this blew my mind
@SpunkySkunk347 this blew my mind