Banter no. 1 was a beautiful start to weaving a new tapestry of interaction in our quaint, lovable, come-on-give-me-a-little-more Whitefish. Thanks for the different threads & needle sizes that you each brought to the table on the human-animal conundrum.
The basic gist of Banter no. 1 was:
After being doled out a vast list of philosophical, academic, fictional, mythical, human/animal rights, and historical readings, we attempted to discourse on What does it even mean to be a human, and some other varieties of the same question (as below).
What are the complications and/or benefits of personifying animals or anthropomorphizing them? How do you splice the divide between human rights and animal rights? What are the historical complications (ie,Animals of the Third Reich excerpt) of leveling out human and animal rights if we bring humans down to animals? Can we bring animals up to humans, why would we? Why does the definition of what a human is often go scientific or push off of animals, yet not get too intricately into emotional, philosophical approaches to this definition? Is it even possible to create a definition for a human that is meaningful, comprehensive, and artful?
No comments:
Post a Comment