Zoomorphism: The Connotation Of Animals Vs. Humans

There are humans in the world that strive to become more animal like. Whether they just act like ones, or have surgical operations to look more like one, they try to become more like an animal. In her essay, "Dr. Daedalus," Lauren Slater suggests that by altering our physical selves to emulate something more animal, our brains, and possibly even our souls, we become somehow more animal as well. She feels that we transform, and become more animal like every time we alter our body into the form of an animal. Slater is correct to point out that when we change our self to look more like animals we might have more in physical features in common with them, but she fails to look at how our identities do not change. We look

In human and animal nature, many similarities are portrayed in Life of Pi as well as a strong relation between the two. In contrast, humans and animals share the same sort of lifestyle, just living a different life according to Pi’s thoughts. In a tragic situation that one is in, such as Pi they must find a way to pass time and keep themselves busy by using their circumstances,

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

Human beings are considered to be the greatest creations that were given knowledge, skills and power to rule over the entire planet. However, at the same time, their relationship with other animals and its implications in human civilization cannot be denied. Historically, it is proven that for thousands of years, human beings have developed close contact with animals who were their means of living and at the same time often, great companions. Considering the great significance of animals in the lives of human beings, often their relationships were portrayed in literature by authors. It was meant to help the global community to have a clear understanding of the impact that animals have in the lives of human beings which is very much significant.

“What these researchers are finding is that many our creatures are more like us than we ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love -- and these findings are changing how we view animals,” said by Rifkin. In Rifkin’s article, A Change of Heart about Animals, highlights the fact we should have empathy of the way we treat our creatures that we share the earth with. He supports his argument with examples of animals having adroitness such as human do. Rifkin also addressesthe brain anatomy and chemisty similar to us.

After reading Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, I discovered more about animals than I had ever known before. As a former pet owner I know how much owners care for their pets and consider them to be a part of the family, almost like a child to them, so they are treated with kindness and are loved to the fullest. What I did not know was how intelligent animals actually are. Rifkin does a great job at expressing this by demonstrating to the audience facts that they had possibly not known or heard of before. For example, he describes how crows can make tools out of a wire, gorillas can learn sign language and have an average score on an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test, and how pigs can often feel lonely and go into depression.

Understanding the nature of animals is essential for understanding the depth of their loyalty and their eagerness to give it. The concept of loyalty in animals, particularly in relation to the loyalty shown by humans, arises several times

“The difference between the brain of the human and the higher animal obviously lies in the degree, not the difference on the essence” (Charles Darwin). The purpose of the quote is to express the feeling that the animal and human is similar, they have the human-like qualities. In Life of Pi written by Yann Martel, Pi uses animal imagery to show that animals that can be mad, suffer, and sad which are all human qualities.

“Biology in one personality traits that come out in some humans, the geography location is where some of them live, and the facts about one person and how they express it?” This  explain the interpretation of having animals in comics and explains how humans act more like animals.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Humans do not often think that creatures other than ourselves can possess the same emotional range that we do, even though we are provided with evidence of it in various forms over numerous species. When studies are announced, claiming that x animal was found performing a “human” emotion or social practice—i.e. certain species of penguins providing their mates with rocks, similar to humans providing rings for marriage (Sea Life Melbourne Staff)—humans are often shocked, and find it, usually, adorable. However, it is human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and if we truly want to include animals in the emotional branch of phenomenology, humans should consider an animal’s sense of spirituality. Stanford University describes phenomenology

While I do not entirely agree with Olsen’s perspective on the Biological Approach, I do believe in his ideology of human animals and human persons being the same thing as opposed to two categorically different entities. Olsen’s argument for the Biological Approach falls flat in response to the Psychological Approach solely because it does not solve any of the problems and, rather, pushes them back while evading unanswered questions—something Olsen criticized proponents of the Psychological Approach for. However, it does support his claim that human animals and human persons are the same much better than the psychological approach does. His reasoning that an animal must die the moment they gain psychological capability or that two beings, one

In her essay, “Am I Blue,” Alice Walker argues how humans disregard the emotional similarities they share with animals. Walker incorporates in her argument the similarities between her emotions as a human, and the emotions of animals. Additionally, she presents her argument through the structure of the essay, and through her use of language. Furthermore, the overall argument of this essay is not only eye-opening, but also persuasive considering that it leaves the reader with a life question; what standards am I living by?

There is a tone of conceit, in that we give animals a voice, and then speak for them. Animals themselves, we believe, resign themselves to a lower rung of the hierarchy and accept that they are of lesser importance. We speak for them, and what we ‘suppose’, and what we ‘think’, will be the prevailing truth.