OK, I think I actually clicked with this comment. The bit about being numerically identical with a human animal makes more sense. The desired answer is No. We are fundamentally something else, and we only have temporary control (a free will thing) over this particular animal. Is that it? — noAxioms
In that case, my question becomes, at what point in the evolutionary history of h.sapien did this animal suddenly cede its self control to something else? — noAxioms
The argument in the OP still seems to make no sense. It seems to beg that the human animal in the chair is complete, not requiring a separate thing to do its thinking. There's all kinds of problems with the model of the animal not doing the thinking, but that doesn't seem to be the point here. — noAxioms
I think those who deny it want to believe that there is a human spirit or soul or essence which is not of this world. It seems to me something like that would be the real motivation to deny that we are animals.
And what do animals value, then? — Wayfarer
That's exactly right. So the question becomes why it matters, one way or the other. One obvious candidate is the belief in some version of the immortal soul. Another is some version of the idea that the animal world, like the mineral one, is just there for us to exploit or, more politely, to adapt to our values and needs.In any case, listing differences between us and other animals does not necessarily bear on whether we are animals. Animals differ widely between each other too. Corals are animals and so are apes. The argument could be made that there are more and more striking differences between apes and corals than between us and apes and yet both are indisputably animals. — Baden
Well, there couldn't be a scientific reason for a definition that was made only for social, religious or spiritual reasons. But there might be good social, religious or spiritual reasons for some definitions. It all depends on what one considers a good reason to be - and, as you say, that comes down to a question of values.It's not a metaphysical claim, it's a linguistic one. We can define an animal as anything we want. It's a question of values - some people want to separate humans from animals for social, religious, or spiritual reasons. There is no scientific reason to do so. — T Clark
Yes, that seems right. But nothing is that simple. There is also the comfortable reflection that, thank God, we are not either.I would tend to agree with Philip Cary that a defining feature of the ancient/medieval and modern splits is:
- Modern man worries about becoming a machine.
-Ancient/medieval man worries about degenerating into a brute. — Count Timothy von Icarus
So the question becomes why it matters, one way or the other. One obvious candidate is the belief in some version of the immortal soul. — Ludwig V
Well, there couldn't be a scientific reason for a definition that was made only for social, religious or spiritual reasons. But there might be good social, religious or spiritual reasons for some definitions. — Ludwig V
So the substantive question becomes when it is useful or appropriate to think of human beings as animals and when is it not useful or inappropriate to think of them as something else. — Ludwig V
Yes, for the purposes of biology, h. sapiens is just another species. But it would be absurd to apply economic theory to a hive of bees or termintes. But it is not a question is once-for-all; it is pragmatic. For example, people need food and shelter, just the same as their animals; they suffer and die from diseases, just the same as their animals. But it would be absurd to grant animals the right to vote; that belongs to people. Again, in the context of athletics, working out how best to throw a discus requires regarding the body as a machine; for many medical purposes the heart is just a pump. And so on.Yes, I agree. For me, the main point is that it is a matter of values and not a matter of fact. In that case, it becomes a question of whether humans should be considered animals rather than whether they are or aren't. — T Clark
it would be absurd to apply economic theory to a hive of bees or termintes — Ludwig V
The Economy of the Hive
Inside the hive there functions a vibrant community, with an economy similar to that of any other society. The bee economy is based upon the harvesting and processing of resources, the trade of products, doting care for the youngsters and parents, wise savings, deficit spending, a hierarchy of jobs, national defense, and an exquisite communication that allows democratic decision making. — Randy Oliver - ScientificBeekeeping.com
But it is not a question is once-for-all; it is pragmatic. — Ludwig V
So then how is animalism vs. not-animalism any different than a stance of physical monism vs dualism?The animalist would claim that those who argue "no" are wrong. That it's incoherent to consider ourselves as fundamentally something other than a human animal. — Baden
Exactly. There are plenty of monist philosophers, and the only difference is that they don't choose this particular term to describe their identical view.I didn't know people denied this. — Patterner
It isn't an animal vs angel (or any other non-earth-evolved life form). It is an assertion of us being no more than what any other animal is. There's nothing additional (spirit, whatever goes to heaven say) on top of it that the animals don't have.Thanks for the insight, and I think you’re right. The idea that we are animals, and not angels or something, — NOS4A2
Not sure what terms you need, but per the quoted argument in the OP, this is what I got, and certainly did not get at first:I didn't see it, probably missed it; will someone be kind enough to refer me to where the significant terms in this thread are given even a tentative definition? — tim wood
And yet... The Economy of the Hive — T Clark
I hadn't thought about this. I guess I assumed that a given human is the same machine, the same animal and the same person throughout their life - normally and paradigmatically. But there are questions about psychological identity (self-identity) and social identity that make it more complicated than that.If we are human animals, and human animals are persons, we ought to extend personal identity to the limits of the human animal’s life instead of limiting its application to the fleeting moments of psychological awareness or memory. — NOS4A2
Yes, that's certainly true. The phenomena around feral children seem to confirm that and, in my understanding, suggest that there is a "window" in our development when those abilities need to be learnt, or are best learnt.But by this criteria, personhood is something that has to be fostered and developed. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, some people do say there is no difference. But if that were true, the species homo sapiens could not be defined. The issue is what the significance of the differences is. The objection is to the idea of human exceptionalism; I mean the attitude that thinks that animals have no moral claim on us and can be treated in the same way(s) that we treat any other physical resource.I didn't know people denied this. Certainly not here at TPF. Most here take it further, and say there is no difference between us and the other species. — Patterner
That may be because the debate is not really about a matter of fact, but a question of attitude and values.The argument seems to be more of an assertion and seems to employ zero signficant logic in coming to its conclusion, — noAxioms
As if that is the sum total of our achievements…. — Wayfarer
My opinion is that people will find a way to justify doing what they want to do. The differences between humans and any other species don't suggest it's morally acceptable to treat other species badly, and I would be more than somewhat surprised to find out anyone who did not think it was acceptable before learning about the differences thought it was acceptable after.Yes, some people do say there is no difference. But if that were true, the species homo sapiens could not be defined. The issue is what the significance of the differences is. The objection is to the idea of human exceptionalism; I mean the attitude that thinks that animals have no moral claim on us and can be treated in the same way(s) that we treat any other physical resource. — Ludwig V
If it was the "is" of identity, everything that is true of the person would also be true of the animal and of the machine. Which is not the case.The 'is' in that sentence should not be read as the 'is' of identity. — Clearbury
:100:To my mind it's really quite a pathetic thing to do, inventing a game just to win it. — goremand
Not necessarily. The two could be separate things, and it is the human animal part that is doing the thinking, as is asserted by P2 of the OP argument.It's the person associated with the human animal who is doing the thinking. — Clearbury
OK, to apply that directly to the OP:magine there is a weightless box into which a 90 kg person has been placed. — Clearbury
I don't get that from P2. It clearly says it is the animal doing the thinking, not the person. There's no mention of 'you' or the person in P2, except as an adjective expressing what owns the chair. There's no implication that what is thinking is what owns the chair.if the 'is' in premise 2 is taken to be the 'is' of identity 9and the argument's validity depends on this) then it's question begging, as it takes for granted that the person who is doing the thinking and is associated with that human body is one and the same as that human bod — Clearbury
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.