Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
03-10-2007 | 10:14 PM
#11
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: MA
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
Very interesting topic and some very interesting points. Something I will add. Ever teach a dog a trick or to obey certain commands? I think certain animals can "think" on a basic level, but nowhere near to the complexity of human thought. Animals can take in information from an environment, process that information, come to a basic conclusion of some sort, and react, but I don't believe that any of it is done with full awareness or comprehension. But who can say for certain? We can only speculate.
03-11-2007 | 01:47 AM
#12
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: State of Confusion
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on this subject, but I cant help but think about the video of bear cubs sliding down a snow covered hillside. It seems that most animals at play we can find some justification for, fawns running and dodging can be used to escape a predator or the kitten stalking through the tall grass to ambush his litter mate is obviously a predatory instinct for catching game. Bear cubs sliding down a hill and rushing to the top to do it again shows a certian ammount of joy this obviously fits into a different context.
Along the same lines as a species have humans evolved to the point where some of our natural instincts have been lost? Why will a 4oz blue bird attempt to drive away a 3lb cat from its nest, while a human mother is capable of leaving an infant in a car in the supermarket parking lot on a 100 degree day? Or are there just oddities in all species?
Like I said I am no expert.
But a great topic
Rogue
Along the same lines as a species have humans evolved to the point where some of our natural instincts have been lost? Why will a 4oz blue bird attempt to drive away a 3lb cat from its nest, while a human mother is capable of leaving an infant in a car in the supermarket parking lot on a 100 degree day? Or are there just oddities in all species?
Like I said I am no expert.
But a great topic
Rogue
03-11-2007 | 08:32 AM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,271
Likes: 0
From: Crescent Valley, NV
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
I have a couple thoughts that come to mind. In 2005, I shot a wet cow elk that had a calf nearby (it was in a herd of about 40 so no worries, I have had people hit me on this before). My dad and I walked right up to that elk, while the calf was still standing right next to her. We had to scare the calf away. It had some confused and dazed look on its face. I think this would have been the first gunshot the calf ever heard (early ml season), so it did not know what to expect. The calf finally ran off with the rest of the herd, and I'll bet that thing never though twice about running at the sound of a gunshot. I am certain there was a definate bond there, and a lesson was learned.
Second. I can go about my daily business around the house without the dogs even raising an eyebrow. (lion hounds). I can start the Jeep, move it around, do whatever with no problems. But if I bring out the tracking collars and walk towards their area, they go apestick. I cannot get them under control because they are so excited that they are going hunting.
I think animals are a lot smarter than humans ever give them credit. It may just be on different level, that we, as humans, cannot understand.
Intersting subject, and lots of interesting responses.
Later,
Marcial
Second. I can go about my daily business around the house without the dogs even raising an eyebrow. (lion hounds). I can start the Jeep, move it around, do whatever with no problems. But if I bring out the tracking collars and walk towards their area, they go apestick. I cannot get them under control because they are so excited that they are going hunting.
I think animals are a lot smarter than humans ever give them credit. It may just be on different level, that we, as humans, cannot understand.
Intersting subject, and lots of interesting responses.
Later,
Marcial
03-11-2007 | 08:52 AM
#14
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,251
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
ORIGINAL: younggun243
Heck, I heard people say on TV that the intelligence of a parrot rivals that of a 5 year-old! I mean, what kind of total CRAP is that?
Let's face it, the average animal rights activist , (and I do know a few) is a middle-aged veganwoman who has no chance of getting married, because she isn't pretty, or whatever, and, most of all,if they've never had kids, they're really cooky. That's true even with some married couples weknow, who don't have kids, and are beyond the point of being able to.
One of the things that occurs, is that they need to have a sense of maternity, and they will lust it, and if they don't get it, they'llpour out they're maternal instinct on other things to substitute children, and these are most commonly living things, such as plants, or animals.
One thing about maternal instinct is, that from what I have witnessed from my own mother, and other mothers, is that maternal instinct very easily cansurpass patriotism, and other such important responsibilities.
In certain situations, all that will matter, is the safety of her child, or substitute.
In order to feel that way, they must thouroughly believe that their child, has a soul, and is able to love, and be responsible.
For mothers, this is very well accepted, because we once were little kids, and we relied on this instinct to survive, and to feel purpose, so we never question maternal instinct, unless it's being used for a non-human, or an irrelevant thing to our existence.
So,bottom line, the people who are the source ofAnthropomorphism, are mainly females, who have substitutes for real children,and theirmaternal instinctmakes them believe that their substitutes have human value to them, because it gives them, and their sacrifice, purpose.
And being proud of their substitute, they spread their belief around.
Just my 2 cents,
Josiah
Heck, I heard people say on TV that the intelligence of a parrot rivals that of a 5 year-old! I mean, what kind of total CRAP is that?
Let's face it, the average animal rights activist , (and I do know a few) is a middle-aged veganwoman who has no chance of getting married, because she isn't pretty, or whatever, and, most of all,if they've never had kids, they're really cooky. That's true even with some married couples weknow, who don't have kids, and are beyond the point of being able to.
One of the things that occurs, is that they need to have a sense of maternity, and they will lust it, and if they don't get it, they'llpour out they're maternal instinct on other things to substitute children, and these are most commonly living things, such as plants, or animals.
One thing about maternal instinct is, that from what I have witnessed from my own mother, and other mothers, is that maternal instinct very easily cansurpass patriotism, and other such important responsibilities.
In certain situations, all that will matter, is the safety of her child, or substitute.
In order to feel that way, they must thouroughly believe that their child, has a soul, and is able to love, and be responsible.
For mothers, this is very well accepted, because we once were little kids, and we relied on this instinct to survive, and to feel purpose, so we never question maternal instinct, unless it's being used for a non-human, or an irrelevant thing to our existence.
So,bottom line, the people who are the source ofAnthropomorphism, are mainly females, who have substitutes for real children,and theirmaternal instinctmakes them believe that their substitutes have human value to them, because it gives them, and their sacrifice, purpose.
And being proud of their substitute, they spread their belief around.
Just my 2 cents,
Josiah
I am going to ask for some citations that reinforce the data which you have just stated. I am not saying you are wrong, Im just saying Im not going to believe an argument such as yours without a citation.
03-12-2007 | 01:52 PM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
Very interesting subject matter indeed, but, it is my opinion that we’re using this term incorrectly, at least when ascribing human characteristics to animals.
KP’s definition of Anthropomorphism – denial of human existence and history, based on religion and social pressures stemming from religious backgrounds and teachings of the church, leading to a delusional separation between humans and other animals.
I believe the base foundation for logic is mirror neurons. This is where we visually predict the future of any of our thoughts or actions. An example of this is if I were to say to you “Hurry, run, there is a huge bear behind you. Jump the ditch and climb the tree”. That sounds real good, well better than “here is a knife, you fight it while I leave”. But after I say my blurb about the ditch and the tree, and you turn to run, and notice that there is no way that you’re going to be able to jump the ditch (too wide) or climb the tree (no low branches), you’ve got to make a new decision.
But, I’ll bet, everyone who just read the preceding paragraph visualized jumping the ditch, climbing the tree and fighting the bear with a knife, while a coward left the area of danger. You were able to see that the ditch as too wide and predict your failure of jumping it. You saw that the tree had no low branches and decided that climbing wasn’t an option, and felt like you’d be foolish to agree to stay and fight, because you could see how ugly that fight would be. But you never did any of those things, did you? Your mind did, and it helped you find the escape with the highest level of success, whatever that would be, based on your own life experiences. It helped you coupe with a bad situation.
They (scientific community) say that animals (well, the other animals – we’re primates) don’t have that ability. Well, neither do some humans. The humans that lack this ability are called autistic. Hmmmm…
So what do they see when they hear the same statement? They probably see the visual that we saw, as far as them, attempting to jump the ditch and climb the tree, but they were successful. In their mind, they were successful jumping the huge gorge I called a ditch, and they climbed right up that tree with no branches with ease. Fantasy and reality are hard to separate; they are dysfunctional because of this.
Since I’m not a psychology major, when I try to expound on this subject I have a very hard time relating to this. I find this funny since I have the ability to see both reality and fantasy for what they are, right? But, having both doesn’t give me the ability to understand not being able to tell the difference between them. Talk about scary. I can see my own limitation here, wow, now that it logic.
But many of us (humans/or logical thinking primates) feel that we can sum up the others (you know, other animals in the animal kingdom) in pretty short order. I don’t think it is that easy. One of my favorite statements is “Animals don’t have a conscience”. And this may be true, to a degree, but only if applied to our strict definition to the word. I’m pretty sure that my dog has a conscience. Many will argue and have, but I’m not convinced. Webster says;
Conscience – 1. a. The faculty of recognizing the difference between right and wrong with regard to one’s conduct coupled with a sense that one should act accordingly. b. Conformity to one’s own sense of proper conduct. 2. a. Consciousness. b. Inner thought.
My argument is – if my dog is left alone with my children, at a time where he is known to be hungry, why doesn’t he eat them? Is it that he has a conscience? If no, then why? Fear of what will happen when I return? These are the only two explanations I can think of, and if the answer is yes, then didn’t he just think, logically? Didn’t he just make a decision based on the repercussions of his actions, so he acted accordingly? My answer is – I think he, as well as many other animals have both, a conscience and logic, and both helped him make his decision, not to eat my children.
To take it a step further, why would this same animal stay and fight in the face of danger to protect these children, even when the odds were stacked against him, when he could easily run away? If I were answering for me I’d have to explain that I would make this sacrifice out of love, and that this would be one of the few instances where self-preservation had to take a back seat. But why? Because of my conscience. I would not be able to live with my self-if I were to leave them, and neither could you. I’m pretty sure he has the same reason.
Not to highjack the thread, but my question is – why do we feel the need to separate ourselves from the animals? Anthropomorphism seems like a lofty way to describe an unworthy disconnection between humans and the rest of the animals when comparing emotions. I don’t find it at all hard to believe that animals feel emotions, and I hesitate to call them human emotions, even though I’m sure there are differences.
Again, KP’s definition of Anthropomorphism – denial of human existence and history, based on religion and social pressures stemming from religious backgrounds and teachings of the church, leading to a delusional separation between humans and other animals.
KP’s definition of Anthropomorphism – denial of human existence and history, based on religion and social pressures stemming from religious backgrounds and teachings of the church, leading to a delusional separation between humans and other animals.
I believe the base foundation for logic is mirror neurons. This is where we visually predict the future of any of our thoughts or actions. An example of this is if I were to say to you “Hurry, run, there is a huge bear behind you. Jump the ditch and climb the tree”. That sounds real good, well better than “here is a knife, you fight it while I leave”. But after I say my blurb about the ditch and the tree, and you turn to run, and notice that there is no way that you’re going to be able to jump the ditch (too wide) or climb the tree (no low branches), you’ve got to make a new decision.
But, I’ll bet, everyone who just read the preceding paragraph visualized jumping the ditch, climbing the tree and fighting the bear with a knife, while a coward left the area of danger. You were able to see that the ditch as too wide and predict your failure of jumping it. You saw that the tree had no low branches and decided that climbing wasn’t an option, and felt like you’d be foolish to agree to stay and fight, because you could see how ugly that fight would be. But you never did any of those things, did you? Your mind did, and it helped you find the escape with the highest level of success, whatever that would be, based on your own life experiences. It helped you coupe with a bad situation.
They (scientific community) say that animals (well, the other animals – we’re primates) don’t have that ability. Well, neither do some humans. The humans that lack this ability are called autistic. Hmmmm…
So what do they see when they hear the same statement? They probably see the visual that we saw, as far as them, attempting to jump the ditch and climb the tree, but they were successful. In their mind, they were successful jumping the huge gorge I called a ditch, and they climbed right up that tree with no branches with ease. Fantasy and reality are hard to separate; they are dysfunctional because of this.
Since I’m not a psychology major, when I try to expound on this subject I have a very hard time relating to this. I find this funny since I have the ability to see both reality and fantasy for what they are, right? But, having both doesn’t give me the ability to understand not being able to tell the difference between them. Talk about scary. I can see my own limitation here, wow, now that it logic.
But many of us (humans/or logical thinking primates) feel that we can sum up the others (you know, other animals in the animal kingdom) in pretty short order. I don’t think it is that easy. One of my favorite statements is “Animals don’t have a conscience”. And this may be true, to a degree, but only if applied to our strict definition to the word. I’m pretty sure that my dog has a conscience. Many will argue and have, but I’m not convinced. Webster says;
Conscience – 1. a. The faculty of recognizing the difference between right and wrong with regard to one’s conduct coupled with a sense that one should act accordingly. b. Conformity to one’s own sense of proper conduct. 2. a. Consciousness. b. Inner thought.
My argument is – if my dog is left alone with my children, at a time where he is known to be hungry, why doesn’t he eat them? Is it that he has a conscience? If no, then why? Fear of what will happen when I return? These are the only two explanations I can think of, and if the answer is yes, then didn’t he just think, logically? Didn’t he just make a decision based on the repercussions of his actions, so he acted accordingly? My answer is – I think he, as well as many other animals have both, a conscience and logic, and both helped him make his decision, not to eat my children.
To take it a step further, why would this same animal stay and fight in the face of danger to protect these children, even when the odds were stacked against him, when he could easily run away? If I were answering for me I’d have to explain that I would make this sacrifice out of love, and that this would be one of the few instances where self-preservation had to take a back seat. But why? Because of my conscience. I would not be able to live with my self-if I were to leave them, and neither could you. I’m pretty sure he has the same reason.
Not to highjack the thread, but my question is – why do we feel the need to separate ourselves from the animals? Anthropomorphism seems like a lofty way to describe an unworthy disconnection between humans and the rest of the animals when comparing emotions. I don’t find it at all hard to believe that animals feel emotions, and I hesitate to call them human emotions, even though I’m sure there are differences.
Again, KP’s definition of Anthropomorphism – denial of human existence and history, based on religion and social pressures stemming from religious backgrounds and teachings of the church, leading to a delusional separation between humans and other animals.
03-13-2007 | 10:39 AM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
From: Tennessee
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
ORIGINAL: Campo
Nothing better than someone who wants to stereotype people....sad
I am going to ask for some citations that reinforce the data which you have just stated. I am not saying you are wrong, Im just saying Im not going to believe an argument such as yours without a citation.
Nothing better than someone who wants to stereotype people....sad
I am going to ask for some citations that reinforce the data which you have just stated. I am not saying you are wrong, Im just saying Im not going to believe an argument such as yours without a citation.
I spoke from my personal experiance, and from people I know who told me about their experiance with animal-rights activists.
I never got in any fights with them, since that was before I got really into the sport of hunting, and I honestly didn't care if they were vegans, because they never forced us to eat veg food.
03-13-2007 | 08:52 PM
#18
Thread Starter
Typical Buck
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
Without going into depth, I went with a commonly accepted definition used in conversational English. I don't want to go off on a tangent related to semantics.
The original post wasn't really meant to say animals don't feel or think. It was a statement that notwithstanding physiological responses that are amazingly similar to ours under what we would consider emotion inducing circumstances, that most animals do not have the brain development necessary for higher reasoning, abstraction, etc... which are key for the thinking part of our emotions. Anthropomorphism isn't found in believing animals think or feel. It is found in believing they do so at a level even approaching humans.
I am a licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor. When I work with people in dealing with say, anxiety--I help them develop cognitive strategies to differentiate the physiological symptoms (most people are not aware of how much of an impact the body's reactions are in an emotional experience) and the thinking end of the experience. They then learn strategies to settle the physical symptoms down and mental strategies to reframe the meaning of the experience so it has less of a negative impact.The animals lack the advanced cognitive abilities to even have a significant cognitive exerience (based on an underdeveloped forebrain), much less "deal" with it.
While obvious that anthropomorphism is nigh unto radical in most animal rights activists, it is clear by many responses here andanother outdoors forum, that it is still a common phenomena among those of us who enjoy hunting and trapping as well. The phenomena isn't the problem, it is the extremes that some experience it that are.
The original post wasn't really meant to say animals don't feel or think. It was a statement that notwithstanding physiological responses that are amazingly similar to ours under what we would consider emotion inducing circumstances, that most animals do not have the brain development necessary for higher reasoning, abstraction, etc... which are key for the thinking part of our emotions. Anthropomorphism isn't found in believing animals think or feel. It is found in believing they do so at a level even approaching humans.
I am a licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor. When I work with people in dealing with say, anxiety--I help them develop cognitive strategies to differentiate the physiological symptoms (most people are not aware of how much of an impact the body's reactions are in an emotional experience) and the thinking end of the experience. They then learn strategies to settle the physical symptoms down and mental strategies to reframe the meaning of the experience so it has less of a negative impact.The animals lack the advanced cognitive abilities to even have a significant cognitive exerience (based on an underdeveloped forebrain), much less "deal" with it.
While obvious that anthropomorphism is nigh unto radical in most animal rights activists, it is clear by many responses here andanother outdoors forum, that it is still a common phenomena among those of us who enjoy hunting and trapping as well. The phenomena isn't the problem, it is the extremes that some experience it that are.
03-14-2007 | 02:23 PM
#19
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Anthropomorphism and what animals "feel"
Wyomingtrapper,
I enjoy these discussions and appreciate you taking the time to post.
Your response has me a little confused. I’m not sure what information you’re looking for, since you don’t seem to want to entertain different perceptions on the subject and the associated definitions, as you refer to “semantics”. Due to us all being different people, with different backgrounds and different life experiences, we’re going to have different feelings/opinions on this subject. Further, it is my opinion that there is no black and white on this subject, only a bunch of grays. Which is why I think you’ve been using the term “abstract”, based on us or you, not being able attribute a strict definition to our (the people you’ve summoned here) feelings on this subject. Further, I’ll have to look into it, but I don’t agree with your definition or interpretation of “Anthropomorphism”, which I understand as ascribing human characteristics to inanimate objects or animals. You seem to be using this term at a much narrower level and are focusing it on abstract thinking/emotion associated with animals, which would be abstract itself, since we can’t wrap our arms around this subject and define it to a level that would be acceptable to all involved. It is subjective at best, an assertion of opinion if you will.
One of the oldest artifacts that points to us, thinking logically is the ostrich egg that was buried containing water. It had one small hole on the top and was plugged with grass. This shows evidence of us being able to project the negative repercussions of our decisions, to perhaps travel further away from a water source, and then creating a plan to overcome, so that we can venture out beyond our previous limits. According to a lot of experts this egg is a truly defining moment in the development of man and logical thinking. But when I look at this scenario, I can’t find much difference between that and a bear burying his dead prey, or a dog burying some bones. Aren’t they planning for the future? Aren’t they acting as if they are aware that they may need this item later, and it is more beneficial at this point in time to continue down a different road, but be ready to come back to this spot for a meal if the other road doesn’t pan out? Or am I ascribing too many human characteristics to them? What this tells me is that before the ostrich egg was hidden by man, we didn’t think as clearly as a dog does now, or whenever dogs started burying bones, and had no better future plans either. We were confined by our limits, as we are today, be it abstract, emotion or logic. Sure we’ve moved way past other animals on many levels, but I think we’re using the same set of tools.
Two areas of debate that I can see here are death, and animals understanding of it. Along with your apparent separation between humans and animals. Your words show me that there is more to this separation than logic and cognitive emotion in regards to you and your feelings. You have emotionally disconnected yourself form the animals as well as other humans who seem to see more similarities between humans and animals than you do, again this being a gray area. This is the more interesting and abstract subject matter in my opinion. My opinion is that the animals have a better understanding of death than a lot of people, maybe even you. I think not understanding death is a more logical starting point, at least if the objective is to understand the truth, than for one to play a game of trickery on ones self. We think that we’re the only beings that understand death, and that it is beyond the other animals comprehension. But when facing death, and the truths that surrounds it, it becomes so stressful that us logically thinking primates go into a pattern of denial. It gets so intense that we start telling each other stories/lies to the point where we begin to believe them, haven’t we just entered into some state of mental illness? You’re the licensed professional, you give the illness a name, I’m sure it has one, I’m just not smart enough on the subject to be able to define it. Maybe some sort of delusional fantasy derived from extreme fear? Either way they (the religious) give this disorder their own set of definitions, like faith, to name one. From my perspective the word faith when referring to a faith in god, simply means – I have successfully tricked myself into not fearing death. As far as everyday life, I guess there is no problem with this trickery, but that is what it is. These same people make statements like “I’m not afraid of death”, or “I’m not scared to die”. Talk about powerful, wow! I envy them to be honest, because once you accept the truth about death; you simply live in fear of it, like all the other people, but consciously. The only way that I can describe it would be like sitting in the electric chair, waiting for the clock to strike your predetermined time of death, executioners hand on the switch. Same level of stress, just spread out and subsequently diluted by time. But there is some level of comfort in being honest with yourself, it does create a sense of peace in some strange way.
Why would this same person, who is religious, and is comfortable in life and death, also urinate and or defecate in instances of extreme fear, just as you mentioned with animals showing fear? What do they have to fear? Not death, according to their faith anyway. But it happens… and it happens because they are truly scared, because they too, deep down don’t know. They don’t know whether they’re going to live, die, go to heaven, hell or just plain die and decay like the other animals, that they have spent a lifetime separating themselves from.
These same people grow up and go off to college. They study all kinds of things and memorize all kinds of vocabulary words, they are now smart, intelligent and intellectual – some proclaim. They study big words like Anthropomorphism, and they try to get down into the nitty-gritty of one small part of the meaning, and somehow associate it with or as a weakness or illness, but at the same time sit there like a deer in the headlights, totally unaware of the other illnesses, ones that they may have, and fuel their desire to focus on the easy ones, the ones that don’t have prerequisites of an open mind and being able to look inward and accept truth and death for what it is. Ones that may contradict their upbringing and beliefs, their faith. Ones that may strip the false sense of security in a abstract fantasy world away from them, and leave them to live the rest of their lives in fear, or truth, you pick.
You can say that these are two different topics, and to some degree they are, but they’re also very much connected. The outcome of your study has already been decided by your faith when studying anthropomorphism. The church already guided you. You don’t have reason to question them, because you have faith. You just need to funny the numbers, and in a way that will allow you to believe it too (hypothetically speaking of course).
Are you a man of faith?
Are you capable of conducting an unbiased study on this subject?
Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance either in regards to your faith as a whole, or when combining your faith to your work or studies such as this one?
Have a great day,
KP
I enjoy these discussions and appreciate you taking the time to post.
Your response has me a little confused. I’m not sure what information you’re looking for, since you don’t seem to want to entertain different perceptions on the subject and the associated definitions, as you refer to “semantics”. Due to us all being different people, with different backgrounds and different life experiences, we’re going to have different feelings/opinions on this subject. Further, it is my opinion that there is no black and white on this subject, only a bunch of grays. Which is why I think you’ve been using the term “abstract”, based on us or you, not being able attribute a strict definition to our (the people you’ve summoned here) feelings on this subject. Further, I’ll have to look into it, but I don’t agree with your definition or interpretation of “Anthropomorphism”, which I understand as ascribing human characteristics to inanimate objects or animals. You seem to be using this term at a much narrower level and are focusing it on abstract thinking/emotion associated with animals, which would be abstract itself, since we can’t wrap our arms around this subject and define it to a level that would be acceptable to all involved. It is subjective at best, an assertion of opinion if you will.
One of the oldest artifacts that points to us, thinking logically is the ostrich egg that was buried containing water. It had one small hole on the top and was plugged with grass. This shows evidence of us being able to project the negative repercussions of our decisions, to perhaps travel further away from a water source, and then creating a plan to overcome, so that we can venture out beyond our previous limits. According to a lot of experts this egg is a truly defining moment in the development of man and logical thinking. But when I look at this scenario, I can’t find much difference between that and a bear burying his dead prey, or a dog burying some bones. Aren’t they planning for the future? Aren’t they acting as if they are aware that they may need this item later, and it is more beneficial at this point in time to continue down a different road, but be ready to come back to this spot for a meal if the other road doesn’t pan out? Or am I ascribing too many human characteristics to them? What this tells me is that before the ostrich egg was hidden by man, we didn’t think as clearly as a dog does now, or whenever dogs started burying bones, and had no better future plans either. We were confined by our limits, as we are today, be it abstract, emotion or logic. Sure we’ve moved way past other animals on many levels, but I think we’re using the same set of tools.
Two areas of debate that I can see here are death, and animals understanding of it. Along with your apparent separation between humans and animals. Your words show me that there is more to this separation than logic and cognitive emotion in regards to you and your feelings. You have emotionally disconnected yourself form the animals as well as other humans who seem to see more similarities between humans and animals than you do, again this being a gray area. This is the more interesting and abstract subject matter in my opinion. My opinion is that the animals have a better understanding of death than a lot of people, maybe even you. I think not understanding death is a more logical starting point, at least if the objective is to understand the truth, than for one to play a game of trickery on ones self. We think that we’re the only beings that understand death, and that it is beyond the other animals comprehension. But when facing death, and the truths that surrounds it, it becomes so stressful that us logically thinking primates go into a pattern of denial. It gets so intense that we start telling each other stories/lies to the point where we begin to believe them, haven’t we just entered into some state of mental illness? You’re the licensed professional, you give the illness a name, I’m sure it has one, I’m just not smart enough on the subject to be able to define it. Maybe some sort of delusional fantasy derived from extreme fear? Either way they (the religious) give this disorder their own set of definitions, like faith, to name one. From my perspective the word faith when referring to a faith in god, simply means – I have successfully tricked myself into not fearing death. As far as everyday life, I guess there is no problem with this trickery, but that is what it is. These same people make statements like “I’m not afraid of death”, or “I’m not scared to die”. Talk about powerful, wow! I envy them to be honest, because once you accept the truth about death; you simply live in fear of it, like all the other people, but consciously. The only way that I can describe it would be like sitting in the electric chair, waiting for the clock to strike your predetermined time of death, executioners hand on the switch. Same level of stress, just spread out and subsequently diluted by time. But there is some level of comfort in being honest with yourself, it does create a sense of peace in some strange way.
Why would this same person, who is religious, and is comfortable in life and death, also urinate and or defecate in instances of extreme fear, just as you mentioned with animals showing fear? What do they have to fear? Not death, according to their faith anyway. But it happens… and it happens because they are truly scared, because they too, deep down don’t know. They don’t know whether they’re going to live, die, go to heaven, hell or just plain die and decay like the other animals, that they have spent a lifetime separating themselves from.
These same people grow up and go off to college. They study all kinds of things and memorize all kinds of vocabulary words, they are now smart, intelligent and intellectual – some proclaim. They study big words like Anthropomorphism, and they try to get down into the nitty-gritty of one small part of the meaning, and somehow associate it with or as a weakness or illness, but at the same time sit there like a deer in the headlights, totally unaware of the other illnesses, ones that they may have, and fuel their desire to focus on the easy ones, the ones that don’t have prerequisites of an open mind and being able to look inward and accept truth and death for what it is. Ones that may contradict their upbringing and beliefs, their faith. Ones that may strip the false sense of security in a abstract fantasy world away from them, and leave them to live the rest of their lives in fear, or truth, you pick.
You can say that these are two different topics, and to some degree they are, but they’re also very much connected. The outcome of your study has already been decided by your faith when studying anthropomorphism. The church already guided you. You don’t have reason to question them, because you have faith. You just need to funny the numbers, and in a way that will allow you to believe it too (hypothetically speaking of course).
Are you a man of faith?
Are you capable of conducting an unbiased study on this subject?
Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance either in regards to your faith as a whole, or when combining your faith to your work or studies such as this one?
Have a great day,
KP
