I Am Not an Animal…

Okay, so strictly speaking biologically I am, I can’t argue that point. For some reason the Naturalists’ notion that we’re all just a bunch of highly evolved ape-like creatures and no different than any other member of our Kingdom strikes those of us in religious circles as offensive. Oh, well I mean I understand why some of us get up in arms since some have what I think is an elevated notion of ourselves, but the main question I have for them/us us what else would you expect when a) there can be no other conclusion for the Naturalists to come to and b) in spite of our attempts to convince them otherwise we act so much like that which they say we spring from?

Most of our lives are spent in pursuit of meeting the biological need. We eat, we sleep, we copulate, we defecate, all things that other animals do no differently, no better. You could argue I suppose that we create these wonderful culinary experiences and that when we have sex it can be emotional and earth moving. Frankly though I’m willing to bet that when most people eat or lay down with one another they do so more out of a perceived need. (In most cases I would argue, when it comes to food anyway, that that need is definitely perceived and in no way a true need.)

We get up, go to work, come home, have social time with our family units, eat, mindlessly entertain ourselves, go to bed and repeat the whole thing ad nauseum. I think that’s wrong at best and an abomination at worst. I’ll grant you that we do need to do most of those things. We are biological beings. We do have needs. But even the Naturalists I know and love though say that we have the potential to elevate ourselves (to a degree) making the difference significant. So this is what this post is about.

Find the elevator! No I’m not necessarily talking about God here (though he, of course, is the ultimate way up and out). We have other drives instilled in us. We create amazing stories. We can think about life, the universe, and everything. We can control our surroundings in ways that other creatures could never aspire to (especially because they don’t aspire to anything). I firmly believe that we can love and nurture one another like no other animal. All of these things put us at the upper end of the spectrum.

“But Scott,” you might well say, “I’m not an artist or a deep thinker.”

Perhaps not, though you’ll never catch me saying that you should only create if you’re a Michelangelo or think if you’re a Descartes. Think anyway. Create anyway. Love anyway. That last one, for me, is the real clincher. Humans have love.

I’m not up on the latest research here, bur I’d lay my ducats down on the notion that other animals don’t love like we do. Sure there are species that mate for life and there are plenty of fancy-dancy mating rituals that would put most weddings to shame, but that ain’t love. Unfortunately a lot of what we humans do with and to our family units ain’t love either.

I told my daughter last night that I didn’t always like her or what she did. That’s pretty tough right there and it was hard to say. I followed it up though, with the statement that regardless of what she does, what she believes, or how she acts I will always love her. She will always have a place in my home, at my table, and in my heart. I will always strive to support her, admonish her, and respect her. That, more than any cathedral or poem or philosophy, is what sets us apart from the animals.

So I challenge you (as I hope I always do) to love one another.

  • Nobilis

    “I’m not up on the latest research here, bur I’d lay my ducats down on the notion that other animals don’t love like we do.”

    You'll have to define “love” to make that assertion. Good luck.

    “Sure there are species that mate for life…”

    Actually, no, there aren't. Not even humans.

    “…and there are plenty of fancy-dancy mating rituals that would put most weddings to shame, but that ain’t love.”

    Again, define your term.

    “Unfortunately a lot of what we humans do with and to our family units ain’t love either.”

    Precisely.

    If you want to make your point here that humans are qualitatively different in their way of behaving from chimpanzees, bonobos, elephants, dolphins, et multiple cetera, you're going to have to be more precise in your terminology.

    When humans LOVE one another, what are you talking about?

    Are you talking about observable, measurable behaviors?

    Or are you talking about an internal emotion that you experience, that you can't imagine any other species experiencing?

  • sidfaiwu

    For some reason the Naturalists’ notion that we’re all just a bunch of highly evolved ape-like creatures and no different than any other member of our Kingdom strikes those of us in religious circles as offensive.

    I take issue with the presumption that naturalists see humans as “no different from any other member of our Kingdom.” Some naturalists might agree with this statement, but I don't. The only thing naturalists will, by definition, agree with is that there is no supernatural quality possessed by humans and no other animals. I believe it is this suggestion that humans have no souls that offends the religious so.

    Nobilis did a great job of providing examples of animals that have traits that you claim are unique to humans. The only bit I would add is counter evidence to, “I’d lay my ducats down on the notion that other animals don’t love like we do.” If you're are talking about subjective experience of love, it's a non-falsifiable position. Not only can you not prove that any other animals experience love the way you do, you can't even prove another human experiences love the same. The only thing we can go off of is behavior.

    As such, I would point to the fact that elephants mourn their dead (another trait once thought to be unique to humans) as evidence that they love on a deep level. There's also physiological evidence (pdf). The brain structures that light up in an fMRI when humans experience romantic love have antecedents in other mammals. In general, emotions centers in brains are far simpler and older (evolutionarily speaking) than the rational centers. It's not a surprise that romantic love is experienced by many of our mammalian cousins.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.roche Scott Roche

    Well I don't think that love is observable and measurable in and of itself though certainly there are things that love cause us to do that are. It is more of an emotion and you're right, until we understand other animals inner workings better (if we ever do) I suppose I can't be certain. I'm willing to risk being wrong though.

    You point out instances were we are similar to animals and I would say that we differ from them in those instances more in degree than in kind. I think that's significant though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.roche Scott Roche

    Love does weird things to my rationality so no promises.

    Wouldn't naturalists say that there are no supernatural qualities period? I agree that form a purely natural/biological POV we are animals. I don't think what we are stops there though. I can't prove it scientifically since it's not in the purview of science to answer those sorts of questions.

    My claims, which Nobilis did poke a few holes in, I think still hold some water. I didn't claim that all of those traits were unique to humans since I know that other animals possess tool use, social structures, and memory. It's a difference of degree in many of those cases. I'll hold to the idea that we alone are true story tellers (and I'm talking fiction here) until science can prove otherwise and the same comes to love.

    Is it my imagination or does science seem more comfortable with anthropomorphism than it once did? That elephant study you linked seems to do a fair amount of reading between the lines. I'll grant you that animals experience emotions and in as far as we are able to crudely measure those given the current science I'll even grant you that some of the emotions are similar to our own. At a certain point I would say that I believe the complexity of our own emotions (perhaps affected by our rational brain?) makes us unique.

  • sidfaiwu

    Hello Scott,

    “Wouldn't naturalists say that there are no supernatural qualities period?”

    Yep. I just limited that comment to the scope of the post.

    “It's a difference of degree in many of those cases.”

    And I would agree, as would other (but by no means all) naturalists. This is why I disagreed with your assertion that naturalists see no difference between humans and other animals. I actually think the differences are two-fold. The first is degree. We are more complex cognitively, linguistically, artistically, socially, and technologically than most, if not all other animals in these categories.

    The second difference is the combination of these more complex abilities. Even if animals possess some of the traits we're discussing, only humans have them all. For instance, chimps may have complex social structures, tool use, and some higher cogitative abilities, but they lack a teachable language (some can learn language but they never pass that knowledge on to their offspring). Dolphins have complex social structures, higher cognition, and possibly a teachable language, but lack tool use (damn you digitless fins!).

    Note, though, that I left out the ability to love from consideration. This is because, for the reasons stated in my last comment, I think other mammals and some birds have the ability to feel love just as we do. That emotion, however wonderful it is, is not even different in terms of degree in my opinion.

    “Is it my imagination or does science seem more comfortable with anthropomorphism than it once did?”

    It is, actually. Jane Goodall is partially to thank/blame for that in the field of biological anthropology. More relevantly, behavioral psychology has been scientifically verified. Thus, if behaviors between species is similar, than we can draw conclusions about psychological similarities.

    “That elephant study you linked seems to do a fair amount of reading between the lines.”

    Remember that scientific reporting in popular media is terrible in the US. What your noticing is likely ABC's interpretation and/or attempt to humanize the story to make it interesting to its readers. The study itself may not commit undue anthropomorphizing.

  • http://topsy.com/tb/bit.ly/bY4fs Tweets that mention I Am Not an Animal… » Spiritual Tramp — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sidfaiwu, MLMin and Spiritual News. sidfaiwu said: I should mention that @spiritualtramp is a blogging _animal_: http://tinyurl.com/kwl98t. Convince him that he is. [...]

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (208.74.66.43) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (74.112.128.10) and so is spam.

  • Nobilis

    If people differ from animals in degree rather than in kind, then the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. What is “significant” is a matter of judgement rather than proof.

  • http://twitter.com/spiritualtramp Scott Roche

    It is and i recognize that it's not objective.

  • http://twitter.com/spiritualtramp Scott Roche

    It is and i recognize that it's not objective.

«
»