Can animals philosophise?

Forums: Deep Thoughts With Jack Handy, Animals, Philosophy, Animal Philosophy, Not That Deep
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi!

Man is an animal - Man philosophises.

Who believes 'man' to be the only philosopher in the animal kingdom?

And why is that, please?

Thank you!
Mark...

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 8 • Views: 6,972 • Replies: 47

[+5] - jgweed - 09/07/2010Just read Pluto's [u]Republic[/u].
[+4] - rosborne979 - 09/07/2010[quote="mark noble"]Who believes 'man' to be the only philosopher in the animal kingdom?[/quote] I do. [quote="mark noble"]And why is that, please?[/quote] Because any...
[+3] - rosborne979 - 09/17/2012You seem to be giving birds (animals) a lot of credit for how their thought process works. Do you have anything to back up your conjecture, or do you just prefer to snip at me when I give the...
[+3] - rosborne979 - 09/17/2012I don't doubt that animals can solve problems, some of them fairly complicated. But I don't call that "philosophy". Also, animals have instinctive behaviors which allow them to build...
[+3] - rosborne979 - 09/16/2012[quote="LangsEnd"] To claim we're the only one that can is also an extraordinary claim, and similarly requires evidence. [/quote] No it's not. And no it doesn't....

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Who believes 'man' to be the only philosopher in the animal kingdom?

I do.

mark noble wrote:

And why is that, please?

Because any philosophy that can't be communicated is just daydreaming, and we're the only animals that can get a philosophical point across to anyone else.

Also, other animals seem to be smarter about how they spend their time Smile

3 Replies

@mark noble,

I held a kitten up to a mirror once and it hissed at the image. I think it recognized the image as a living thing. That was actually the smartest cat I've ever known. You have to have the ability to see yourself which means experiencing a split between subject and object regarding yourself to ask any of the fundamental philosophical questions.

What is the world made of? Are time and space contiguous or atomic? Is the world we have created for ourselves the best we can do? To be or not to be, that is the question.

My dog would love Hamlet. Did somebody say Ham?

0 Replies

Just read Pluto's Republic.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

we're the only animals that can get a philosophical point across to anyone else.

We don't know this, Rosborne. It is speculation.
Risen from the minds of those who believe them selves seperate from the animal kingdom - Not referring to you, by the way.

We are all protein-based compilations.

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

we're the only animals that can get a philosophical point across to anyone else.

We don't know this, Rosborne. It is speculation.

To claim that other animals can communicate philosophical points is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So unless you can come up with some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary, it's not speculation.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

YES! PUN!

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

To claim we're the only one that can is also an extraordinary claim, and similarly requires evidence. Just because we can't prove they can is no bases to assume they can't.

1 Reply

@LangsEnd,

LangsEnd wrote:

To claim we're the only one that can is also an extraordinary claim, and similarly requires evidence.

No it's not. And no it doesn't.

LangsEnd wrote:

Just because we can't prove they can is no bases to assume they can't.

Lack of proof is not the basis for the assumption. The basis is observation of behavior, understanding of the processes involved and deduction.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Because any philosophy that can't be communicated is just daydreaming

I disagree. Philosophy is just a concept (given - it is a particular type of inferred concept). The testing of it in argument only validates or invalidates the original inferred concept - philosophy.

So any animal capable of inferred concepts, is capable of philosophy (to whatever degree they are capable of conceptualising)

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

mark noble wrote:

Who believes 'man' to be the only philosopher in the animal kingdom?

rosborne979 wrote:

I do.

mark noble wrote:

And why is that, please?

rosborne979 wrote:

Because any philosophy that can't be communicated is just daydreaming,
and we're the only animals that can get a philosophical point across to anyone else.

This fellow must be SPYING upon
the communications of all animals,
such that he KNOWs the depth of their philosophical content.

I remember 2 puppies I once had,
a German Shepherd & a Golden Retriever.
I don 't know how thay did it, but somehow,
thay both picked up an end of a rope
and used it to play tug-of-war with it, several times.
I have no knowledge of their other communications; (maybe Mr. 979 can check his records n tell me).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I don 't know how thay did it, but somehow,
thay both picked up an end of a rope
and used it to play tug-of-war with it, several times.

Does the behavior your just described constitute "Philosophy" in your mind?

0 Replies

@mark noble,

I am on board with rosborne's idea that most animals spend their time better.

I do not, however, share his notion that philosophy that isn't communicated is just daydreaming. Communication, that is, the adaptation of philosophical thought into words, is very restrictive to the thought process itself. Many criteria have to be satisfied for something to make sense verbally, but the same criteria may not apply to the idea. But to communicate the idea, we have to apply these criteria to it, and upon receiving the communicated idea, there is no way the recipient can completely identify which aspects are of the thought itself and which are of the added content.

But more on the issue, what constitutes 'philosophizing'?

Our family dog (we had many, but here I mean the last one) was exceptionally clever. She liked to carry long sticks, often as long as three meters.
One time she held a small tree like that, we came to a bridge. It was only around two meters wide, with bridge posts on either side of the road. I immediately saw that the long stick the dog was carrying would collide with the bridge posts on both sides, and so it did. The dog stopped as the stick hit, of course, and then her eyes went from side to side. Then she backed up a few steps and turned her head, so that the length of the stick was now parallel to her body, and then she walked over the bridge. I was quite shocked.

This may not constitute 'philosophizing', but it is evidence of abstract thought being used to solve a practical problem. And isn't that what philosophy is about?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am on board with rosborne's idea that most animals spend their time better.

I do not, however, share his notion that philosophy that isn't communicated is just daydreaming. Communication, that is, the adaptation of philosophical thought into words, is very restrictive to the thought process itself. Many criteria have to be satisfied for something to make sense verbally, but the same criteria may not apply to the idea. But to communicate the idea, we have to apply these criteria to it, and upon receiving the communicated idea, there is no way the recipient can completely identify which aspects are of the thought itself and which are of the added content.

But more on the issue, what constitutes 'philosophizing'?

Our family dog (we had many, but here I mean the last one) was exceptionally clever. She liked to carry long sticks, often as long as three meters.
One time she held a small tree like that, we came to a bridge. It was only around two meters wide, with bridge posts on either side of the road. I immediately saw that the long stick the dog was carrying would collide with the bridge posts on both sides, and so it did. The dog stopped as the stick hit, of course, and then her eyes went from side to side. Then she backed up a few steps and turned her head, so that the length of the stick was now parallel to her body, and then she walked over the bridge. I was quite shocked.

This may not constitute 'philosophizing', but it is evidence of abstract thought being used to solve a practical problem. And isn't that what philosophy is about?

Consider lion prides' co-ordinated attack patterns.

David

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I don't doubt that animals can solve problems, some of them fairly complicated. But I don't call that "philosophy".

Also, animals have instinctive behaviors which allow them to build complex structures and go through complex rituals, but that's not philosophy either (at least to me). Bower birds build strange nests, adorn them with colorful baubles and then do complex dances around them, but most of that is behavioral instinct, it doesn't even involve "planning" in the same way that we plan things.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't doubt that animals can solve problems, some of them fairly complicated. But I don't call that "philosophy".

Also, animals have instinctive behaviors which allow them to build complex structures and go through complex rituals, but that's not philosophy either (at least to me). Bower birds build strange nests, adorn them with colorful baubles and then do complex dances around them, but most of that is behavioral instinct, it doesn't even involve "planning" in the same way that we plan things.

I marvel at the ornithological expertise of a man who KNOWs
exactly how Bower birds plan their architecture.
Surely he has consulted many of them. (Can Bower birds talk ?)

David

1 Reply

u r so **** that u insist to talk **** about anything u know

philosophy shitters wills has nothing to do with solving problems or planning ahead some moves

philosophy is the knowledge of relation between thoughts and truth as far as knowing how to held true perspectives of thoughts relations ends freely, which confirm their realities being true

that is why philosophy is principally known being a question always which that always confirm question existence, if questions exist then existence is definitely true

u r **** what animals know this
while u all know this and much more but ur insistence to be affiliated to animals is pathetically the proof that only **** are living

truth is freedom animals are possessions

freedom becoming existing when there is two and more free so objective freedom could exist so existence of absolutes is sure a fact

true existence is objective free relations realisations between different things, the more relations perspectives are meant out of being free space as a fact seen, the more objective existence is true

philosophizing this right would say, that objective existence reason is most likely due to objective freedom recognitions from different sides, surely what also revealed a better conception of truth being freedom value from the fact seen that objective relations so the relation concept cant b but free while in realizing objective relations of free space it is surely done by gaining more free existence quality, which confirm that it is all about only freedom for freedom values

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You seem to be giving birds (animals) a lot of credit for how their thought process works. Do you have anything to back up your conjecture, or do you just prefer to snip at me when I give the standard scientific assessment of animal behavior.

I don't think we need to read a cow's mind to know that it probably can't do calculus. And we don't need to "prove" that pigs can't fly just because they don't have wings.

The original question of this thread was "can animals philosophise?". My answer is NO based on our understanding of animals, their brains, and eons of observation of their behavior. That's the obvious answer. If you have a more extraordinary claim to make, then you will need extraordinary evidence to back it up.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Precisely, there won't even be an argument if Ockham's razor is applied.

From the angle of brain physiology one needs to have a deeper level of awareness, having ideas, and weighing alternatives.

Some animals other than humans have all such characteristics to a level, but not as deep as a level as an average human.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I don't doubt that animals can solve problems, some of them fairly complicated. But I don't call that "philosophy".

Evidently, we have different opinions about what constitutes philosophy.
I agree that thinking to reach a practical solution isn't really philosophy.
But falling in love with the theoretical answer to the practical solution.... what is that? To me, a good philosopher is one who can find a working answer to a practical problem. For every one of those there are one hundred who drone for the sake of droning, and even though they would call their work philosophy, I see it as little more than a form of masturbation. But then again, that is a matter of context. If Einstein had been proven wrong, we would view his theories as intellectual masturbation with little or no practical application. But that was not how history would have it. Still, there is a lot of 'philosophy' that I would label 'intellectual masturbation'...

1 Reply

Forums
» Can animals philosophise?

Read Question
Reply to All

Can animals philosophise?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know