Philosophy Now Forum

"The moral imagination is the principal possession that man does not share with the beasts. It is man’s power to perceive ethical truth, abiding law, in the seeming chaos of many events. Without the moral imagination, man would live merely day to day, or rather moment to moment, as dogs do. It is the strange faculty—inexplicable if men are assumed to have an animal nature only—of discerning greatness, justice, and order, beyond the bars of appetite and self-interest."

Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969

tbieter wrote:"The moral imagination is the principal possession that man does not share with the beasts. It is man’s power to perceive ethical truth, abiding law, in the seeming chaos of many events. Without the moral imagination, man would live merely day to day, or rather moment to moment, as dogs do. It is the strange faculty—inexplicable if men are assumed to have an animal nature only—of discerning greatness, justice, and order, beyond the bars of appetite and self-interest."

Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969

Utter untruth and rubbish. Dogs have been known to weep for their masters, and perform heroic and compassionate acts, as well as many other species, dogs, cows, apes, goats, elephants, horses, etc. Some dogs can even speak rudimentary English. Don't believe everything you're taught, and thanks for wasting my time with this post, and the inevitable string of argumentative responses and ruffled feathers that will probably be unleashed. Might as well get the popcorn now.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

tbieter wrote:"The moral imagination is the principal possession that man does not share with the beasts. It is man’s power to perceive ethical truth, abiding law, in the seeming chaos of many events. Without the moral imagination, man would live merely day to day, or rather moment to moment, as dogs do. It is the strange faculty—inexplicable if men are assumed to have an animal nature only—of discerning greatness, justice, and order, beyond the bars of appetite and self-interest."

Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969

Utter untruth and rubbish. Dogs have been known to weep for their masters, and perform heroic and compassionate acts, as well as many other species, dogs, cows, apes, goats, elephants, horses, etc. Some dogs can even speak rudimentary English. Don't believe everything you're taught, and thanks for wasting my time with this post, and the inevitable string of argumentative responses and ruffled feathers that will probably be unleashed. Might as well get the popcorn now.

I think Kirk is saying is that animals don't have the capacity to create an epistemology. For example, animals don't have a theory of justice or ethics.

Animals act with instinct for the good of the pack, there is no understanding of empathy or altruism, that is just anthropomorphic projection by humans.

thedoc wrote:Animals act with instinct for the good of the pack, there is no understanding of empathy or altruism.

No different than a human. Because you slap words on it doesn't make it more relevant. I already mentioned dogs can speak rudimentary English. Humans are automatons, no different that other animals, you have no intrinsic quality that makes your existence fundamentally different, actually. Perhaps you have more words in your thoughts, but other than that, it is essentially the same. Although, with more thoughts, the greater chance of delusional thinking. The one difference is that an animal feels love then goes about his business, but a human feels who love feels the need to put himself on a pedestal, proclamating how evolved he is for feeling and acting out of love.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

thedoc wrote:Animals act with instinct for the good of the pack, there is no understanding of empathy or altruism.

No different than a human. Because you slap words on it doesn't make it more relevant. I already mentioned dogs can speak rudimentary English. Humans are automatons, no different that other animals, you have no intrinsic quality that makes your existence fundamentally different, actually. Perhaps you have more words in your thoughts, but other than that, it is essentially the same. Although, with more thoughts, the greater chance of delusional thinking. The one difference is that an animal feels love then goes about his business, but a human feels who love feels the need to put himself on a pedestal, proclamating how evolved he is for feeling and acting out of love.

Perhaps you have supplied a difference. Animals are not capable of delusional thinking.

Ginkgo wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

thedoc wrote:Animals act with instinct for the good of the pack, there is no understanding of empathy or altruism.

No different than a human. Because you slap words on it doesn't make it more relevant. I already mentioned dogs can speak rudimentary English. Humans are automatons, no different that other animals, you have no intrinsic quality that makes your existence fundamentally different, actually. Perhaps you have more words in your thoughts, but other than that, it is essentially the same. Although, with more thoughts, the greater chance of delusional thinking. The one difference is that an animal feels love then goes about his business, but a human feels who love feels the need to put himself on a pedestal, proclamating how evolved he is for feeling and acting out of love.

Perhaps you have supplied a difference. Animals are not capable of delusional thinking.

Since animals are capable of rudimentary communication, as I supplied earlier, it is likely they have some form of thought, other than simply a sentient, feeling, hungry beast on prowl, but with no thought. As such, the possibility of hallucinatory and or delusion conditions still apply, perhaps not as well defined, but more along the lines of thoughtfeelings, "If I do this ridiculous thing, and knock over my master's belongings, my master will be happy" kind of deal.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Since animals are capable of rudimentary communication, as I supplied earlier, it is likely they have some form of thought, other than simply a sentient, feeling, hungry beast on prowl, but with no thought. As such, the possibility of hallucinatory and or delusion conditions still apply, perhaps not as well defined, but more along the lines of thoughtfeelings, "If I do this ridiculous thing, and knock over my master's belongings, my master will be happy" kind of deal.

Can you give me an example, whereby an animal holds on to a belief despite evidence to the contrary, aka "delusional"

Ginkgo wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Since animals are capable of rudimentary communication, as I supplied earlier, it is likely they have some form of thought, other than simply a sentient, feeling, hungry beast on prowl, but with no thought. As such, the possibility of hallucinatory and or delusion conditions still apply, perhaps not as well defined, but more along the lines of thoughtfeelings, "If I do this ridiculous thing, and knock over my master's belongings, my master will be happy" kind of deal.

Can you give me an example, whereby an animal holds on to a belief despite evidence to the contrary, aka "delusional"

In that sense, no. Delusional in the sense that they have delusional beliefs, at times, like doing illogical things to please their master, when common sense would say it would displease their master. But they do not examine evidence, in the matter than you describe. The majority of the human populace, too does not examine evidence if it is contrary to their delusions.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

tbieter wrote:"The moral imagination is the principal possession that man does not share with the beasts. It is man’s power to perceive ethical truth, abiding law, in the seeming chaos of many events. Without the moral imagination, man would live merely day to day, or rather moment to moment, as dogs do. It is the strange faculty—inexplicable if men are assumed to have an animal nature only—of discerning greatness, justice, and order, beyond the bars of appetite and self-interest."

Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969

Utter untruth and rubbish. Dogs have been known to weep for their masters, and perform heroic and compassionate acts, as well as many other species, dogs, cows, apes, goats, elephants, horses, etc. Some dogs can even speak rudimentary English. Don't believe everything you're taught, and thanks for wasting my time with this post, and the inevitable string of argumentative responses and ruffled feathers that will probably be unleashed. Might as well get the popcorn now.

Trixie appears to reject the description of reality known as the hierarchy of being. And, accordingly, she rejects the belief that a man is essentially superior to a dog.

A relevant principle from scholastic philosophy, and a tool for testing her contention, is the following:

81 One being or perfection is essentially superior to another if it has one or more attributes or operations which are totally different and totally better than those of another being, or which are free from all the limitations found in the lower nature.
The following formula of identification of essential superiority in natural bodies may be used: Perfection A in a being excels B when A implies B's presence, but not vice versa.
NOTE Natures lacking this criterion may be A only numerically distinct, or B merely different in degree, or C simply disparate in essence.
Summary of Scholastic Principles, p.26
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14699&p=188655#p188655

Is a dog limited, compared to a human child, in its capacity to learn and use the English language?

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/05/your-dog-is-a-toddler/

tbieter wrote: Trixie appears to reject the description of reality known as the hierarchy of being. And, accordingly, she rejects the belief that a man is essentially superior to a dog.

A relevant principle from scholastic philosophy, and a tool for testing her contention, is the following:

81 One being or perfection is essentially superior to another if it has one or more attributes or operations which are totally different and totally better than those of another being, or which are free from all the limitations found in the lower nature.
The following formula of identification of essential superiority in natural bodies may be used: Perfection A in a being excels B when A implies B's presence, but not vice versa.
NOTE Natures lacking this criterion may be A only numerically distinct, or B merely different in degree, or C simply disparate in essence.
Summary of Scholastic Principles, p.26
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14699&p=188655#p188655

Is a dog limited, compared to a human child, in its capacity to learn and use the English language?

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/05/your-dog-is-a-toddler/

Your first mistake is using the word "better", like it means something. Is an alien race better if it has superior technology and intellect, but no wisdom? Thus, a human is no better than a dog, though it may believe itself so. For without wisdom, it's technology and intellect will be its own bane.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

tbieter wrote: Trixie appears to reject the description of reality known as the hierarchy of being. And, accordingly, she rejects the belief that a man is essentially superior to a dog.

A relevant principle from scholastic philosophy, and a tool for testing her contention, is the following:

81 One being or perfection is essentially superior to another if it has one or more attributes or operations which are totally different and totally better than those of another being, or which are free from all the limitations found in the lower nature.
The following formula of identification of essential superiority in natural bodies may be used: Perfection A in a being excels B when A implies B's presence, but not vice versa.
NOTE Natures lacking this criterion may be A only numerically distinct, or B merely different in degree, or C simply disparate in essence.
Summary of Scholastic Principles, p.26
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14699&p=188655#p188655

Is a dog limited, compared to a human child, in its capacity to learn and use the English language?

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/05/your-dog-is-a-toddler/

Your first mistake is using the word "better", like it means something. Is an alien race better if it has superior technology and intellect, but no wisdom? Thus, a human is no better than a dog, though it may believe itself so. For without wisdom, it's technology and intellect will be its own bane.

I disagree. The word "better' does have meanings.
Please respond to the question about a dog's limitations.
better1
[bet-er]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1.
of superior quality or excellence:
a better coat; a better speech.
2.
morally superior; more virtuous:
They are no better than thieves.
3.
of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable:
a better time for action.
4.
larger; greater:
the better part of a lifetime.
5.
improved in health; healthier than before.
6.
completely recovered in health.
adverb, compar. of well with best as superl.
7.
in a more appropriate or acceptable way or manner:
to behave better.
8.
to a greater degree; more completely or thoroughly:
He knows the way better than we do. I probably know him better than anyone else.
9.
more:
I walked better than a mile to town.
verb (used with object)
10.
to increase the good qualities of; make better; improve: to better one's grades;
to better the lot of the suburban commuter.
11.
to improve upon; surpass; exceed:
We have bettered last year's production record.
12.
Cards. to raise (a previous bid).
noun
13.
that which has greater excellence or is preferable or wiser:
the better of two choices.
14.
Usually, betters. those superior to one in wisdom, wealth, etc.

tbieter wrote: I disagree. The word "better' does have meanings.
Please respond to the question about a dog's limitations.
better1
[bet-er]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1.
of superior quality or excellence:
a better coat; a better speech.
2.
morally superior; more virtuous:
They are no better than thieves.
3.
of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable:
a better time for action.
4.
larger; greater:
the better part of a lifetime.
5.
improved in health; healthier than before.
6.
completely recovered in health.
adverb, compar. of well with best as superl.
7.
in a more appropriate or acceptable way or manner:
to behave better.
8.
to a greater degree; more completely or thoroughly:
He knows the way better than we do. I probably know him better than anyone else.
9.
more:
I walked better than a mile to town.
verb (used with object)
10.
to increase the good qualities of; make better; improve: to better one's grades;
to better the lot of the suburban commuter.
11.
to improve upon; surpass; exceed:
We have bettered last year's production record.
12.
Cards. to raise (a previous bid).
noun
13.
that which has greater excellence or is preferable or wiser:
the better of two choices.
14.
Usually, betters. those superior to one in wisdom, wealth, etc.

There-in lies the problem. A word with over 14 different meanings, has very little meaning at all. If I said Picasso's paintings were better than Leonardo's, would I be right, wrong, or would it be a statement with little to no value? Though to be fair, you did say the word "superior", but the same philosophy applies. Superior in what way? The food chain? Gluttony and war does not make someone great.

Because of this attitude, the depth of human debauchery knows no bounds. They care not for the wellbeing of other animals, for they live by the law of the spoils. The victor takes all, by rite. He who is most clever and strong, deserves whatever spolls he taketh. The rights of the lesser out the window, they are inferior to the brute. The brute is a brute not by having a low intellect, most brutes are somewhat learned, and clever. He is a brute because he obeys the law of the spoils.

In this manner, the poor of a "free" nation tell themselves that it is by their own fault that they are poor. They admire the rich, because the rich are more clever and strong than they, and thus deserve their spoils. They dream someday, that they too will become clever and strong, so they too can gain the spoils. To sabotage the rich, would be to sabotage themselves, in their minds. The child with defects is unwanted, because it has no use, and that which has no use is scorned, and cast aside, because it does not benefit them. Thus, they only love and care for that which benefits them, because Law of the Spoils.

.





Yes. I agree. The original poster and the post that began this thread is utter untruth and rubbish.


Almost unbelievable that this particular member needed to quote a nobody from way-back in 1969.


TOTAL utter untruth and rubbish.


I was offended and I would bet other intelligent and respected active posters were as well.


An apology from the original poster may be in order...




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.





Yes. I agree. The original poster and the post that began this thread is utter untruth and rubbish.


Almost unbelievable that this particular member needed to quote a nobody from way-back in 1969.


TOTAL utter untruth and rubbish.


I was offended and I would bet other intelligent and respected active posters were as well.


An apology from the original poster may be in order...




.

Yes...yes...an apology...