It has been argued by some ancient
philosophers that animals are fundamentally different from humans, while others
believed that we share important attributes.
This essay shall review the opinions of six of these ancient
philosophers, three on each side of the debate, and the criteria used to form
those opinions as reproduced in the sourcebook Animals in Greek and Roman Thought by Stephen T. Newmyer.
Animals
Were Fundamentally Different than Humans
Alcmaeon of Croton is held
to be the first of the Great Greek thinkers that created clear delineations
between the intellectual capacities of man and those of animals.[1] Springing from these delineations that
Alcmaeon created also began a belief that man is the only creature on Earth
that is rational, and this subsequently became the fundamental base for the
classical speculation on animals which was to follow.[2] Using the reason that animals lacked a spoken
language and had no cultural advancements, he decided that animals lacked
rationality. Newmyer believes that it is
Alcmaeon’s research on human sensory organs (such as the eye) that influenced
his conclusions on the state of animal mentality. Theophrastus in his treatise On the Senses quotes Alcmaeon as saying,
“…man differs from the other creatures in that he alone has understanding (xuniesi), while the other creatures have
perception (aisthanetai), but do not
have understanding.”[3]
Plato also shared the
opinion that animals lacked reason and other certain mental faculties that
humans possess. Through Plato’s
comparisons of humanity to the animal kingdom, it is evidenced that he had an
interest in animals more from a metaphysician standpoint rather than that of a
biologist.[4];[5] His comparisons were used as a metaphor to express
his opinion of what kind of a person someone was, such as an uneducated person
being no better than the lowest of the savage beasts.[6] While this clearly uses the animal kingdom as
a means of derision, Plato also held some animals in a higher regard such as
the bee and the ant. These animals, he
believed, were good examples of how humans should structure their world in direct
juxtaposition to lions and wolves, whose conduct he found to be undesirable in
civilisation.[7]
When discussing
metempsychosis[8], Plato believed that
humans could assume the form of other animals. However, depending on which of Plato’s works
are consulted, the views on which animal forms could be taken differ.[9] Also in The
Republic, Plato discusses that animals (such as swans) are able to take the
forms of other animals as well as humans.[10] This duality of conflicting viewpoints in
Plato has perplexed scholars from antiquity until now.[11] It remains unclear what Plato’s actual
position on the intellect of animals in comparison to that of humans actually
was. It appears that while Plato denied animals
rationality, he would on some instances attribute to them a portion of
intellect. This can be interpreted as
Plato making a distinction between intellect and rationality, and coupled with
his views on animal intellect as compared to mans, shows that he believes
animals are not similar to humans.
As a student of Plato’s, it
is not surprising to find that Aristotle also had a few self-contradictions in
his opinions on the rationality and relationship of animals to man. Aristotle was a more prolific writer
concerning the life sciences than any other philosopher of the ancient times.[12] He wrote a very long treatise called Historia Animalium (History of Animals)
which spans 10 books and in them he focused on classification, reproduction,
and movement of different animal species.
He also developed an idea called sunecheia,
which is a biological graduation from one type of animal to another, similar to
that of evolution, but differing by believing in the permanence of genera and
species.[13] Aristotle also believed that nature allowed
for a difference between humans and animals as far as reason goes by denying
animals reason fully, but only allowing them “traces” of some human
characteristics and “resemblances” of intelligence.[14]
Aristotle appears to have
been very concerned with the life sciences and to have spent a great deal of
time researching animals and making observations of their behaviour and
attributes as a background to his theories.
He wrote another treatise called De
partibus animalium (Parts of Animals) in which he discussed his views as to
why each animal is the way that it is, according to how he depicted them in the
Historia. While Aristotle believed that animals had a
consciousness, he denied that they had any reason, reserving that attribute for
humans alone. He also did not believe
that the soul was a spiritual entity that could migrate to a different body
upon death, but that it was biologically connected to the body that it dwelt
in.[15] Even though Aristotle seemed to be a
contradiction between whether or not he believed animals were like humans, he
maintained assertions that because humans have so little in common with
animals, they can stand in no relation of justice with them and that animals
were intended for use by man.[16] Further, Aristotle also said that “Some
[animals] are knavish and mischievous …others are gentle and readily tamed… But
only man is deliberative.”[17] While
Aristotle’s arguments are strong, they are based in preconceived ideas carried
over from Plato that animals are not rational, and as such seem to lack
open-minded objectivity.
Animals
were Fundamentally the Same as Humans
Not much is revealed about
Alexander in the Newmyer text, other than that he was the nephew of Philo of
Alexandria, and that he gave lectures.[18] One of Philo’s works, called On Animals, was the record of a lecture
given by Alexander and the subsequent rebuttal by Philo himself. In it, Alexander maintains that animals must
have a degree of reason like unto humans in order to be able to make the
choices and decisions that they do.
Alexander maintains the stance that animals contain to a degree both the
logos endiathetos (inner reason) and
the logos prophorikos (uttered reason).[19] Alexander refuted the Stoic[20]
doctrine of animals being without the hegemonikon[21] with his claims that
animals have both types of reason to some degree. Continuing to refute these beliefs, Alexander
used the examples of ants, bees, and birds to show that animals have to have
reason, as otherwise they would not be able to build the houses that they do.[22]
Alexander continued to show
that animals have reason and are like humans by displaying the fact that they
have vices, the same as humans. “It is
obvious that not only men but also various other animals have inherited the
faculty of reason. Furthermore it is
believed that they possess both virtues and vices.”[23] Alexander felt that this line of reasoning
should be self-evident to anyone that had some amount of education or ever
looked at animals in a contemplative way.
Plutarch was a very prolific
writer and covered a vast array of topics.
While not always staying true to the Platonic manner of true argument,
he usually set his writings in the form of lengthy discourses and speeches.[24] He covered topics from religion to
interpersonal relationships. Three of
his works dealt with the human-animal relationship, one of which is called On the Cleverness of Animals and is a defence
of the position that all animals possess some degree of reason. There are other intellectual attributes other
than rationality and reason that Plutarch ascribed to animals, and he said that
these allowed them to cope successfully with their lives and entitled them to
respectful treatment from human beings.[25] This was significant because possession of
reason was considered to be a prerequisite for human moral concern, and was
frequently demanded in ancient philosophical discussion of human-animal
relations.[26]
Some of the arguments that
Plutarch used in the defence of the rationality and intellectual attributes of
animals could be referred to as common sense.
Examples would be: why hunters would pit themselves against certain animals
if they did not find the animals to be worthy adversaries that possessed intellectual
endowments which made them a true test of wits to hunt; or, how would animals
know how to build nests or spin webs or choose one path as opposed to another
if they did not possess sufficient enough reason to carry out a decision?[27] Most of these arguments are argued against
the Stoic line of thinking, which denies reason and intellectual properties to
animals. Plutarch even used some of the
Stoic’s own theories against them in this argument, by arguing that in nature
everything has its opposite, the rational and the irrational, those possessing
a soul and the soulless. According to
the Stoics things that have souls have rationality, and they also attribute
souls to animals, yet they say that they have no rationality.[28] This is a contradiction, and therefore Plutarch
clearly used the Stoic’s own beliefs against them to show that animals have
reason. This was also stated by Soclarus
who said, “[T]here is plenty of the irrational in all things that do not have a
share of soul, and we need no other counterpart to the rational; but everything
that is soulless, insofar as it is without reason and understanding, is opposite
to that which has reason and thought, along with a soul.”[29]
Lastly, Porphyry’s treatise On Abstinence from Animal Flesh is a
large defence to the anti-Stoic position that animals and humans share
rationality and have a kinship to each other.
He chastised the Stoics and their doctrine that animals have a portion
of rationality but are still denied any kinship with humans.[30] He also mentioned the Epicurean[31]
theory that animals cannot be rational because they do not form contracts with
people. He further refuted this line of
thinking by arguing that even though not all people make contracts; this does
not mean that those people are not rational.[32] Porphyry also stated, as did Alexander
previously, that animals are also able to have vices, which proves that they
are rational as the definition of vice is a failure to heed reason, and they
must possess rationality so that they can choose to ignore reason.
Bibliography
Newmyer, S. (2011).
Animals in Greek and Roman
Thought: A Sourcebook. Routledge, New
York.
[1]
Newmyer, Animals in Greek and Roman
Thought: A Sourcebook, (2011:3)
[2]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:3)
[3]
Theophrastus, Alcmaeon, DK 1a
(trans.) Newmyer (2011:3)
[4]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)
[5]
Plato’s constantly varying
classification system for animals also contributes to him not being regarded as
one of the great Greek biologists.
[6]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)
[7]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)
[8]
The belief that the soul of
a person or animal can migrate at death into the form of another person or
animal dependant upon what type of manner of life they previously lead.
[9]
See Phaedrus, Republic, Phaedo, and Timaeus
[10]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:5)
[11]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:5)
[12]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:6)
[13]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:7)
[14]
Aristotle, History of Animals,
588b4-12 & 588a20 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:7)
[15]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:8)
[16]
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics,
1161a30-1162b2 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:8)
[17]
Aristotle, History of Animals,
488a20-26 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:9)
[18]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:11)
[19]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:11)
[20]
(Στωικισμός) – a philosophical movement during
the Hellenistic period which believed in emotional reservations that bordered
on detatchment.
[21]
The part of the soul
according to Stoic belief that becomes rational in humans and not in animals
[22]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:12)
[23]
Philo, On Animals, 85 (trans.)
Newmyer (2011:14)
[24]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:15)
[25]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:15)
[26]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:16)
[27]
Plutarch, On the Cleverness of Animals,
966A & 966E, 969B-C (trans.) Newmyer (2011:16-17)
[28]
Chrysippus, On Opposites, SVF 2.281
(trans.) Newmyer (2011:3-4)
[29]
Plutarch, On the Cleverness of Animals,
960C (trans.) Newmyer (2011:18)
[30]
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:33)
[31]
School of philosophy started by Epicurus.
Newmyer, Animals, (2011:28-29)
[32]
Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Flesh
III, 13. 1-3 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:34)
No comments:
Post a Comment