on anthropomorphization
Various teachers - mainly English and literature - have advised against anthrophomorphization. It crops up in other fields as well, such as Biology, and Psychology, and who knows where else. Likely in religion, too. These teachers treat it less as sin, than folly - much as they'd talk to a twelve year old who persisted in believing in Santa Claus, despite being told it was just Ma and Pa, up late Christmas eve. But to them I say: phooey. A pox on your idiocy, and the "primacy" of mankind. Are we not animals, too?
From Merriam-Webster:
an·thro·po·mor·phize
transitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to
intransitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to things not human
Also, because one thing leads to another:
per·son·al·i·ty
the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
If nations and groups can have personality, then why not cats and dogs? Certainly, 'nations' and 'groups' are made up of people, but so what? I am made up of atoms - so does it then follow that my wholeness expresses their personality, much as the nation of man expresses ours? And do not these atoms make up, well, mostly everything? Dogs and cats inclusive?
Besides, I can see quite clearly that we follow certain blueprints, have evolved quite alike. Four limbs. Two eyes. Two ears. A tongue to lick with. If these forms served evolution and existence well enough for all of us, why shouldn't also joy, sadness, and perhaps even a sense of irony? Tragedy? Awe? And more?
Moreover, how can anyone who believes in evolution not believe this? If you're a creationist, then while I may disagree with you, you'll at least have a leg to stand on when you insist dogs are not at all like us, and should not be "anthropomorphized". Because God created them that way. But how can fair-minded people who otherwise believe in evolution think that mankind is somehow special, and that personlity and complexity is a gift meant only for us? It boggles my mind.
We are all creatures of the soup, and of the spark, and while some may say I cannot prove that dogs and cats share emotion with us, neither can they disprove it then. It is, after all, an experiential thing. But I've lived with them, and loved them, and when I look into their eyes, I know. If you have never had that feeling then do not, in your bitterness or arrogance, try to steal it from me. I certainly won't let you have it.
I'd a job once, where the boss said the death of a pet was not a valid reason to miss work - they were after all just animals. I've a professor who now says much the same thing, regarding absences. But they are wrong, the both of them. My pets (friends!) have more personality than any ten of those bosses or teachers. And should anything happen to them, I'd be of the personality to care.
If anyone should therefore, in the future, tell me not to anthropmorphize, then I shall look at them square in the eye and say, "The lack of personality lies not with the animals. The lack of personality lies with you."
And I'll mean it, too.
From Merriam-Webster:
an·thro·po·mor·phize
transitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to
intransitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to things not human
Also, because one thing leads to another:
per·son·al·i·ty
the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
If nations and groups can have personality, then why not cats and dogs? Certainly, 'nations' and 'groups' are made up of people, but so what? I am made up of atoms - so does it then follow that my wholeness expresses their personality, much as the nation of man expresses ours? And do not these atoms make up, well, mostly everything? Dogs and cats inclusive?
Besides, I can see quite clearly that we follow certain blueprints, have evolved quite alike. Four limbs. Two eyes. Two ears. A tongue to lick with. If these forms served evolution and existence well enough for all of us, why shouldn't also joy, sadness, and perhaps even a sense of irony? Tragedy? Awe? And more?
Moreover, how can anyone who believes in evolution not believe this? If you're a creationist, then while I may disagree with you, you'll at least have a leg to stand on when you insist dogs are not at all like us, and should not be "anthropomorphized". Because God created them that way. But how can fair-minded people who otherwise believe in evolution think that mankind is somehow special, and that personlity and complexity is a gift meant only for us? It boggles my mind.
We are all creatures of the soup, and of the spark, and while some may say I cannot prove that dogs and cats share emotion with us, neither can they disprove it then. It is, after all, an experiential thing. But I've lived with them, and loved them, and when I look into their eyes, I know. If you have never had that feeling then do not, in your bitterness or arrogance, try to steal it from me. I certainly won't let you have it.
I'd a job once, where the boss said the death of a pet was not a valid reason to miss work - they were after all just animals. I've a professor who now says much the same thing, regarding absences. But they are wrong, the both of them. My pets (friends!) have more personality than any ten of those bosses or teachers. And should anything happen to them, I'd be of the personality to care.
If anyone should therefore, in the future, tell me not to anthropmorphize, then I shall look at them square in the eye and say, "The lack of personality lies not with the animals. The lack of personality lies with you."
And I'll mean it, too.