Somethimg which you alone can provide, hence the point of the exercise!

On second thoughts, what I will say is that I think humans alone are capable of giving explanations, and I think that this is self-evident. So if you want me to explain that, I will decline, as I don’t think an explanation is required.

humans seem to have an innate ability to determine that we are favoured creatures of gods, and better/smarter than everything else on the planet. — Tom Storm

That is how Christians are said to have construed it, which fact is then regarded as an argument against it. But the Greeks proclaimed the sovereignty of reason before Jesus came along. Again, any argument against it must appeal to the very faculty which it seeks to question. It must give reasons.

It might even be argued that our particular brand of reasoning makes us inferior to animals who have and can find and do everything they need much more simply and elegantly than humans. — Tom Storm

A moral judgement which no animal would make. There is nothing better or worse for them. They’re not able to envisage that things could be otherwise than what they are.

Started by Never Trumper Republican media people. Like the Lincoln Project. But all those panelists are independent of that.

I agree, and I do read The Bulwark from time to time. But they’re all disillusioned conservatives, which shows just how far MAGA has morphed from its origins.

So, no one is really indigenous to anywhere except the African continent. — Arcane Sandwich

What about the warm little pond?? Where was that? :brow:

We know things must be truly desperate when 180 starts posting The Bulwark.

My advice would be to start with a concise paragraph expressing the point of the essay. Then sketch out headings and sub-headings, representing the progressive stages of building the argument and the steps required to establish each step. That step of building level 1, 2 and 3 headings is often helpful in structuring your content.

Also consider likely objections and your counter to them.

End with a conclusion which should state the paragraph you started with but now as a conclusion based on the preceding paragraphs.

Read the question and decided, against character, to register a response.

Gene Webb's Philosophers of Consciousness; — theThomist

:chin:

Hochschild has plainly bought into the alternative history, that the insurrection attempt was a peaceful protest about a stolen election with the protesters as victims. I suspect it is futile to attempt to reason against such a view. It’s part of the process of normalizing ‘the big lie’ such that it becomes the dominant narrative.

Think of all the lies I got to put up with! ---Pretenses! Ain't that mendacity? Having to pretend stuff you don't think or feel or have any idea of? — Big Daddy, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

s the line between us and animals so special because we have atom bombs and iPhones? Are our more complex adaptations and affectations a sign of superiority or really a kind of deficit? — Tom Storm

I’m going to make a spinoff thread and respond, but it will tomorrow.

This is what I think is required to support your claim of an ontological difference of kind. — Metaphysician Undercover

On what basis did Aristotle designate man the ‘rational animal’?

The ‘faculty of reason’ is a perfectly intelligible expression, and the idea that humans alone possess it fully developed, and some animals only in very rudimentary forms, ought hardly need to be stated. Yet for some reason whenever it is stated, it provokes a good deal of argument. Which I attribute to the irrationality of modern culture!

People are voting with their wallets. Tesla sales plummet.

Fair, And they’re few in number. I find that reassuring.

It opens up horizons of being that are not availalable to other creatures, although I suppose if you don’t find that significant, there’s probably nothing that can be said.

That you have the faculty to have such a conversation, something which no other sentient being possesses.

I don't see what makes our ability to reason relevant here, — goremand

Said he, reasoning.

Except for one more thing. That article by Hocschild completely ignores reality.

Who attempts to overthrow a government without weapons?

Witness testimony and evidence in legal cases against supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 show that some of the rioters had weapons, contrary to social media posts saying the attack could not be called an “insurrection” because none of the participants was armed.

Americans—at least 50,000 souls—traveled to Washington, D.C., that day to attend a peaceful civil rights demonstration, a rally to demand integrity in election processes.

What 'integrity'? Trump and his stooges, including the unfortunate Guliani, brought more than 60 cases about voting irregularities, every one of which was tossed. All of that talk about 'integrity' is a lie and a cover for the actual reality of what happened, which was a violent insurrection aimed at subverting a legal election.


Now the perpertator is running the country. Yet somehow, I'm the one who's 'brainwashed'.

You're right, I should stop posting about this, and will. But I retract nothing.

but I will stop posting about Trump now.

Wayfarer, it looks like you're being brainwashed by the media. — Leontiskos

I retract nothing. As to whether USAID is going to be shut down, USAID is set to be hacked from 14,000 workers to just 294. And that is going to happen, it is, in fact happening. All of those USAID workers have been shut out of their computer systems. This is not a hypothetical. That video is from eight months ago. It's turning out much worse than was feared.

Oh, and if Hoschschild says that, then I'm very dissappointed by that. I've learned a lot from that article of his that I refer to but I completely reject any rationalisation of the January 6th outrage. It was an attack on the foundations of American democracy.

I could make the same case for the pistol shrimp and say that it is an ontologically distinct species because it has the unique faculty of shooting shockwaves out of it's claws — goremand

Which is a triviality. The mere fact of uniqueness is not at issue: species are defined in terms of uniqueness. At issue is the capacity to reason, unique to h.sapiens and the entailments of that. So whomever has tried to 'point that out' is mistaken.

Incidentally my news feed is Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Authority, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, Politico, TheHill, Daily Beast, and a few others. I do not, as a matter of principle, pay any attention to Murdoch media outlets.

It’s a complete disgrace, what Musk and Trump are doing. They’re trampling over laws, Congressional authority, and accepted practice. This is the man who’s first official act was to commute the sentences of 1500 people sentence to prison for storming the US Capital on 6th Jan 2021, in in all likelihood would have been convicted and sentenced over that, if not for the willingness of the US electorate to overlook his egregious acts. By all means, merge USAID, close the programs, retrench the staff. But not in the dead of night, on a moments notice, and without any congressional oversight, by an unelected appointee.

When I studied Hume as an undergrad, I was introduced to the idea of a priori truths, the standard example being that a bachelor is unmarried - because bachelors are unmarried as a matter of definition. To be told of someone, 'John is a bachelor' is also to be told that John is umarried; saying John is unmarried after having been told he is a bachelor is a tautology.

I always found this unsatisfactorily deflationary. I think it's both interesting and significant that there are things we can know a priori. Obviously not so much in such jejune cases as John's marital status. But the principle of non-contradiction amounts to more than simply definitional truth—it undergirds all reasoning. Likewise, mathematical truths (at least in a classical sense) seem to be discovered rather than invented, suggesting they reveal something real about the structure of thought or even reality, and often lead to or predict unexpected empirical discoveries. So there's something a little world-weary about using the terminology of 'taulogies'.

He seems a decent fellow, but if actually was, he’d resign immediately. Read for yourself what's actually happening:

The Trump administration’s abrupt decision to repatriate the U.S. Agency for International Development’s overseas workforce has thrust the agency’s global staff into chaos and despair, as workers scramble to uproot their lives and brace for what they fear will be a shutdown of all American aid missions in 30 days.In interviews, USAID staffers said Tuesday’s recall order has sent them racing to make temporary housing arrangements back in the United States, identify new day cares or schools for their children, and plan for a future in which, as many now believe is inevitable, they are left unemployed.

These employees, some assigned to dangerous “hardship” posts, are attempting to navigate that process with little information from the Trump administration and while many are locked out of all agency computer systems.

“You find yourself in a foreign country, in all likelihood a place you moved to despite the terrorism or security risks, and you’re being treated as if you’re somehow an enemy of the state,” one USAID official told The Washington Post. “That’s not even the worst of it. You know that your career matters far less than the lives of those you were trying to help, and … a lot of them are going to die without American aid.”

...Some USAID officials now expected to return to the United States are just months into multiyear assignments. Many spoke with emotion about the disruption facing their families and anger at the characterization, by Musk and others, of USAID as a corrupt and “criminal” organization. The administration has produced no evidence indicating that is true. ...

USAID employees said that initially they were encouraged when Trump tapped Marco Rubio, who had supported foreign aid during his time as a U.S. senator from Florida, for secretary of state. Expecting tighter scrutiny from the Trump administration, some officials prepared dossiers for incoming agency leaders showing the impact of programs they oversee. ...

Rubio has said he regrets the recent actions hadn’t been in an “orderly fashion,” but he said the process had unfolded that way because USAID officials had not provided “information and access.” (a.k.a 'victim blaming'.)

“Congress sets our budget. They determine our priorities in country. It is not a USAID thing,” one employee in Africa said. “So when he says that … he’s feeding into this lie that USAID is this rogue agency. It is extremely hurtful.”

“What I have found to be more disheartening, as a someone who has dedicated their life to federal service and as an American, is Secretary Rubio’s willingness to parrot that narrative that somehow our disobedience and our insubordination is the cause of our current pain,” another affected official said. — Washington Post

‘Time is God’s way of making sure everything doesn’t happen at once’ ~ anonymous

hey are expecting concentration camps any day soon. — Tom Storm

Large scale internment camps of 'hostile aliens' are an immanent possibility. Trump has already ordered construction of one at Guantamo Bay, to accomodate 30,000 unfortunates.

the remaking of America along radical libertarian lines. — Tom Storm

and in the the event of total economic collapse, all of the ultrawealthy will withdraw to heavily armed gated communities. Sounds dystopian, doesn't it?

The next really big part of this crisis will be the budget resolutions and debt ceiling negotiations, middle of next month (beware the Ides of March).

It’s likely to get much uglier, don’t you think? — Tom Storm

I'm frankly very scared about it. A lot of people (including my dear other) think I'm overdoing it, but I think we're looking at the worst global crisis since 9/11. It dismays me that so many people are shrugging it off or falling in behind him. I don't think they understand what's happening.

Surely some disgruntled and powerful ex FBI/CIA types are making plans... — Tom Storm

If not, a screenwriter, based on that scenario. As far as the police, military and intelligence community goes, how much loyalty do you think they'll have to the Orange Emperor? My guess would be, precious little. The police likely hate him for releasing all the Jan 6th police bashers. He routinely denigrates the intelligence community and military. So if push comes to shove, how much of a chance do you reckon the Proud Boys militia would have? (This is why he's desparately trying to purge the entire intelligence community and putting appartchiks in charge of them and the military.)

these people do see the government as the real enemy here — ssu

The unfortunate fact is that America has elected a President who hates Government and is also really bad at governing.

Trump’s power grabs will go on until someone stops him – and that’s not happening soon.

My wager is that those animals tend to live in a sort of zen-like state, more or less as described by ↪Wayfarer. Why are we not like them, in our ordinary lives? Precisely because of the more "human" parts of our brains. The humanized parts of our brains are like a double edged-sword: on the one hand, they allow us to live in a more rational way. They are responsible for our science, technology, art, and philosophy. However, they also sort of "disconnect" us from our more primal, animalistic nature. — Arcane Sandwich

Quite. A passage from a powerful essay that I will sometimes cite. (It was originally published online as a reaction to 9/11, by a Californian Zen teacher and poet, reproduced in a book of his essays. It provides a rich framework for consideration of the deeper issues.)

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “is-ness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it —other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer

In other words that h.sapiens and canids (etc) are beings of different kinds. I said that the ability to speak, count, create technology, pursue science, and the like, amounts to a difference in kind, not simply one of degree.
— Wayfarer

Can I ask, what defines this difference for you, that is the difference between a difference in kind and a difference of degree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what the difference is between an ontological distinction and any other kind, so forgive me if I just talk about a distinction (or difference). It seems to me that there are differences between h. sapiens and other creatures and similarities. A big part of the issue is which of them matter, and that depends on the context. — Ludwig V

As I've introduced this idea of there being an ontological difference or discontinuity between humans and other animals I will attempt to justify and describe it.

But bear in mind, the origin of the discussion in this particular thread, was in respect of Berkeley's philosophy, and, in particular, his empiricism, and his insistence, with the other empiricist philosophers, that sensory experience is the sole source of knowledge.

As noted in 's response, this contention was criticized by Kant, in an effort to differentiate his 'transcendental idealism' from what he described as Berkeley's 'dogmatic idealism', and also in a more general sense because of Kant's insistence of the fundamental role of the a priori in the understanding. That is an element lacking in Berkeley's philosophy (and indeed in all of the empiricist philosophers).

I introduced what I understand of the Aristotelian-Thomist (A-T) criticism of Berkeley's empiricism, as described by Edward Feser in several online posts. At issue in that criticism is the claim that reason makes use of another faculty, apart from sensation and imagination, and it is this faculty which distinguishes the human intellect. As Jacques Maritain, another A-T philosopher, put it, what distinguishes the human from animal minds, is the ability to grasp universals - the universal 'man' for example. He contrasts that with the intelligence of the dog (and this can be said with all due respect to the status of dogs as companion animals, for whom I have great affection). A dog doesn't form a concept of a class or kind but 'reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions [from] his eyes or his nose'. Feser adds to this, the idea that universals are the fundamental constituents of rational judgement (I will mention again his post Think, McFly, Think, for a more detailed description.)

Getting back to the 'ontological distinction'. Ontology means 'kinds of being'. For instance, in information technology, the ontology of a network would comprise a description of the different kinds of components that it comprises (e.g. servers, printers, routers, pc's etc. Not the inventory, but the kinds of devices - inventory would be separate.) In philosophy, 'ontology' has rather fallen out of favour (as has 'metaphysics'), partially because it's a rather archaic term, but also because it relies on making the kinds of distinctions that sit uncomfortably with naturalism, which tends not to categorise this way.

So - in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, the distinction between humans and animals is not merely one of degree—it is an ontological distinction. Animals are sentient, but their consciousness is bound to immediate experience. Humans, by contrast, possess rational intellect, allowing for abstract thought, self-reflection, and moral reasoning. This places humans in a separate category, traditionally referred to as animal rationale (rational animals) rather than merely sentient beings. It is also the source of what is loosely described by 'the human condition'. I am critical of the way that neo-darwinism, on the popular level, erases this distinction, although that is tangential to this thread. My only purpose in bringing in A-T was to highlight their criticism of Berkeley, which I believe has merit, even though in many other respects, I am prepared to defend Berkeley's idealist philosophy.

:100: Totally with you on all that. Thanks for summarising his Refutation of Idealism.

I appreciate everything you said. I am reading a book about the Christian mythology of being God's chosen people and what this has to do with the westward movement and assuming China would improve as Christian missionaries spread Christianity through China. — Athena

Somewhat related - there's actually a fascinating story of how an ancient, heretical Christian sect reached China after having to escape persecution in what is now Persia. They were the Nestorian Christians, and they were given refuge in the Middle Kingdom, where they settled, and distributed copies of the Gospel story, replicated in Chinese on silk scrolls, with all of the names Asianised (Jesus being 'Issa' and the scriptures being called the 'Issa Sutras'). THis happened very early, in 600 A.D. or so. You can find the wikipedia entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East_in_China and there are various documentaries, and this book.

I think you should put more energy into making a positive case for the ontological distinction you're introducing to other people, — goremand

Thanks. It is a theme I write a lot about. The post you're referring to is a follow up on a previous conversation in another thread on rational thinking in animals and humans. I don't think my view is obvious, I've done a lot of research, reading and thinking about it over a long period. I'm criticizing a view which is thought obvious by many.

If you want me to try and explain the reasoning in more detail I'm more than happy although it is probably more relevant in that other thread.

:clap:

'“Modern culture,” argues D.C. Schindler “is largely a conspiracy to protect us from the real.”

I have copped some hostility in the past for saying that the aim of modernity is to create a safe space for the ignorant. I'm sure it's the same idea.

I got a marvellous book a couple of years back, Radiance of Being, Stratford Caldicott (avery poignant story of his premature death from cancer too). I really related to his story, also, as he had been deeply studying Mahāyāna Buddhism before converting to Catholicism. There's a strain of Christian Platonism that I'm very drawn to, although I have real problems with the institution and its history.

Trump completely blindsided everyone with that idea. He hadn't consulted anyone about it - Cabinet, State, Defense. I almost felt for him, when he said that Gaza is a living hell, because it plainly is. But in terms of realpolitik, it's plainly a non-starter. The fact that he can broach such far-reaching ideas by way of almost-casual remarks ('Hey, how about we....') beggars belief.

More to the point, NY Times lists all of the definitely or possibly illegal actions Trusk has taken since Inauguration.

Musk hasn't totally destroyed Twitter yet — Count Timothy von Icarus

IN hindsight it seems likely that he only bought Twitter as his personal megaphone. The fact that it's estimated to have lost 75% of its market value doesn't appear to bother him, but then, talk about money to burn.....

Something more alarming is, imagine how deep the DOGE hooks will now be embedded in the IT systems of the Federal Government. I'm sure it's not coincidence that the DOGE troupe are mainly software engineer types. Infiltrating those systems at such a high level of permissions has many profound consequences. And here's the US, worrying about 'foreign actors' hacking their systems (although not worried enough for Congress to complain when Trump moves to retrench virtually the whole of the CIA.)

Trump's presidency is heading for ever-greater amounts of turmoil and instability. He completely blindsided Congress with his ridiculous Riviera in Gaza thought bubble, but the really major chaos will erupt in March, when the floor votes begin on funding the Federal Government and raising the debt limit. A government shutdown - and recall, Trump presided over the longest of these to date and mainly out of pique - is quite possible.

Meanwhile, Hakeem Jeffries spells out the Democrat view on MAGA extremism.

Good to know! I too had astounding experiences with lysergines, when it was still legal, which says something (I am after all a baby boomer). As you say, impossible to really describe, and even to remember, in some ways. Although one vivid memory that stays with me was seeing something like 'the great perfection' - this sudden realisation of the overwhelming beauty of all nature, one morning at dawn, looking at a young sapling growing from the crevice in a moss-covoured rock. Along with the realisation that we're generally dead to that beauty because of the weight of habituation (gee, I said that well).

At some point, the drugs wear off, and you're back to your ordinary life, with ordinary experiences. — Arcane Sandwich

Buddhist meditation teacher, Jack Kornfield, wrote a book called After the Esctacy, the Laundry, which is exactly about this point (although not specifically related to hallucinogens).

I'm sure that hallucinogens do provide a window to a higher or alternative reality - once you've seen it, you can't deny it. But integrating that insight or vision with daily life is a very different matter. Part of those insights have stayed with me, but there's a lot of it buried under...well, I've already said that.

I know a current Zen master, an American roshi called Meido Moore. He often emphasises that with some training and diligent application, an initial satori is not that uncommon. But what's really hard, is stablising that insight and actually living from it day in, day out. I guess that's why Zen training is so legendarily rigorous.

This is just behaviourism restricted, for some reason, to animals. But many people were quite happy to explain human beings in that way as well as animals. It is a way of thinking about them, not vulnerable to a simple refutation. (Compare religious belief).

But If "a dog reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions his eyes or his nose receive from this thing we call a piece of sugar or this thing we call an intruder;" how does it not see or smell the sugar or the intruder and know perfectly well what they are - what the appropriate reaction is?. I'm bewildered. — Ludwig V

We discussed this at length on that thread on rationality in humans and animals. I distinctly recall holding the minority view in that thread, as I maintained that the Aristotelian distinction of h.sapiens as 'the rational animal' is a valid ontological distinction. In other words that h.sapiens and canids (etc) are beings of different kinds. I said that the ability to speak, count, create technology, pursue science, and the like, amounts to a difference in kind, not simply one of degree.

Now as for whether that is a 'religious belief'. The reluctance to acknowledge what I take to be a clear ontological distinction between homo sapiens and other species seems to stem from a broader philosophical commitment—one shaped by the widespread influence of Darwinian naturalism on our conception of human nature. In many ways, evolutionary biology has reinforced the view that we are fundamentally continuous with the rest of nature, which is something many cherish, both as an expression of scientific understanding and as a foundation for ecological and ethical values. And I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of those values.

However, I believe this perspective risks overlooking a real distinction that has profound existential implications. Our capacity for self-awareness, symbolic language, and complex tool-use sets us apart in ways that are not merely matters of degree but of kind. While we should certainly recognize our biological continuity with the rest of nature, we should not let that recognition obscure the radical difference that defines our cognitive and cultural life. I suspect that some resistance to acknowledging this distinction arises because evolutionary theory has, in some sense, come to function as a meta-narrative—a way of understanding our place in the cosmos that, in its broadest cultural expression, tends to downplay discontinuities in favor of an overarching unity by flattening such ontological distinctions. It is one of the consequences of the cultural impact of empiricism that Jacques Maritain (and, in a different way, George Berkeley, are criticizing.)

If he (the dog) has not the idea or concept, he does not know the thing. But since he responds appropriately to the thing, he has a concept of it. Not necessarily the same as yours and mine, but similar. — Ludwig V

The point of Maritain's essay is precisely that a dog (or other non-rational sentient beings) lack the specifically human capacity to form concepts. 'The human intellect grasps' says Maritain, 'first in a most indeterminate manner, then more and more distinctly, certain sets of intelligible features -- that is, natures, say, the human nature -- which exist in the real as identical with individuals, with Peter or John for instance, but which are universal in the mind and presented to it as universal objects, positively one (within the mind) and common to an infinity of singular things (in the real).' This is, of course, Aristotelian realism, and Maritain says he is an Aristotelian.

The Edward Feser blog I posted puts it like this:

As Aristotelians and Thomists use the term, intellect is that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts (like the concepts man and mortal), put them together into judgments (like the judgment that all men are mortal), and reason logically from one judgment to another (as when we reason from all men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal). It is to be distinguished from imagination, the faculty by which we form mental images (such as a visual mental image of what your mother looks like, an auditory mental image of what your favorite song sounds like, a gustatory mental image of what pizza tastes like, and so forth); and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the goings on in the external material world and the internal world of the body (such as a visual experience of the computer in front of you, the auditory experience of the cars passing by on the street outside your window, the awareness you have of the position of your legs, etc.).

That intellectual activity -- thought in the strictest sense of the term -- is irreducible to sensation and imagination is a thesis that unites Platonists, Aristotelians, and rationalists of either the ancient Parmenidean sort or the modern Cartesian sort. The thesis is either explicitly or implicitly denied by modern empiricists and by ancients like Democritus...

I would say 'reason' rather than 'thought' but I think the point is clear. So, no, I don't think that dogs and cats entertain concepts, but I hold that on philosophical, not religious, grounds. And that this goes against the grain of modern culture, precisely because of the cultural impact of empiricism.