Karma Killed Coeztee

[1]

As I've been reading much animal rights and ethics literature, I have suddenly become intrigued by the notion of Karma.... Not to spoil a good read for all the logicians out in blogspace, but "what if"? What if all of our actions are centered around Karma? What if, as Coeztee wrote, "But they do not understand death as we do, or rather, as we fail to do." [2] Of course Coeztee meant to say that humankind cannot understand death as it is because we have never experienced it. Therefore, as I interpret Coeztee, we have no true knowledge of death. So we misperceive most all facets of death by not only possessing limited knowledge of death ourselves, but by also possessing a misperception of how death is suffered by animals, so we often do what suits our understanding of animals: they're here to serve us...and as some say God created the animals for us to use.

[3]

But what if it goes further than this? What if this whole paradox of analyzing and philosophizing about humans suffering and animals suffering compared to the holocaust and slavery were so far off base that it didn't even begin to correlate with reality as we [don't'] know it? This could certainly be the case as nobody has written from experience on death. But what about suffering? Surely, some of us suffer before we die as part of death. David and I mumbled under our breaths about Dr. Kavorkian, aka, "Dr. Death. But "Dr. Death" didn't do what he did because he liked killing people. He wanted to help people suffering from and during terminal illnesses. So, certainly we cannot altogether separate suffering from death, or life. As hard as Dr. Kavorkian tried, he could not separate suffering from life until after death.

[i]


But speaking of life, what if death does not exist? What if [death] the exiting of our humanly bodies is really just another passage onto our next rebirth? According to Tanner's Lecture, animal compassion is a very recent Western ethical view. So let's take David Hume's thoughts on inaliable rights, such as the right to bear children. Regarding this matter, Hume thought individuals had this right only if there were enough worldly resources to sustain such rights. So, if resources cannot support a child, then one does not have inalienable rights according to natural law. However, the Western perspective does not adhere to these principles in this regard as we can virtually have as many children as we want to. Yet we do adhere to inalienable rights as being rights given to us separate from, and not contingent, upon statutory laws or even customs. We are, as humans, born with these rights of "liberty".

Which brings me to Coetzee's question,

"Isn't there a certain wisdom in the traditional view that says that animals cannot enjoy legal rights because they are not persons, even potential persons, as foetuses are? In working out rules for our dealings with animals, does it not make more sense for such rules to apply to us and to our treatment of them, as at present, rather than being predicated upon rights which animals cannot claim or enforce or even understand?"[4]

For me, the legitimacy of animal compassion does not lie on the ability for the animal to understand it's rights, rather, in our ability to see it's rights in relation with our actions and coexistence. According to the notion of Karma, our actions towards other beings will be payed back to us in this life or the next existence. With this notion of Karma comes a certain level of speculation and theory building that doesn't appeal to our conventional notions of logic (but neither does Christianity). Yet, indeed, there is logical order to the idea of Karma. Allow me to quote from the Bhagavad Gita,

These bodies come to an end,
It is declared, of the eternal embodied (soul),
Which is indestructible and unfathomable.
Therefore fight, son of Bharata!

Who believes him a slayer,
And who thinks him slain,
Both these understand not:
He slays not, is not slain

He is not born, nor does he ever die;
nor, having come t o be, will he ever more be come not to be.
Unborn, eternal, everlasting, this ancient one
Is not slain when the body is slain

Who knows as indestructible and eternal
This unborn, imperishable one,
That man, son of Prtha, how
Can he slay or cause to slay--whom?

As leaving aside worn-out garments
A man takes other, new ones,
So leaving aside worn-out bodies
To other, new ones goes the embodied (soul).

Swords cut him not,
Fire burn him not,
Water wets him not,
Wind dries him not

Not to be cut is he, nor to be burnt is he,
Not to be wet nor yet dried;
Eternal, omnipresent, fixed,
Immovable, everlasting is he.

Unmanifest he, unthinkable he,
Unchangeable he is declared to be;
Therefore knowing him thus
Thou shouldst not mourn him

Moreover, even if constantly born
Or constantly dying thou considerest him,
Even so, great-armed one, thou
Shouldst not mourn him

For to the one that is born death is certain,
And birth is certain for one that has died;
Therefore, the thing being unavoidable,
Thou shouldst not mourn him [5]

This passage from the Bhagvad Gita referring to Karma reminds me of how much we don't know about death and suffering. Yet at the same time reminds me of how much we think we know about death. I venture to say, we don't even know the beginning. And nature as we see it, can be deceptive and so can the ethics associated with how humans--and animals--react to nature and life.

[ii]

The above youtube reveals a leopard who has an ethical conscious. The leopard kills a baboon who then has a baby after being killed. Something moves, and the cub leopard notices the baby baboon that has just been born. In what seems to be an awakening of moral consciousness, the leopard protects the baby from the Hyenas. What's so amazing about this video is the leopard seems to have compassion and though a predator by nature, demonstrates the understanding of the preciousness of life. Does this rare video capture the ethical conscious of a leopard? You be the judge. But do we still believe Wendy Doniger when she says, "no one can prove someone else does not know how animals feel."?[6] It'd be hard to say that you could not know how the leopard felt. The leopard felt guilty. Was this perhaps its moral consciousness speaking to it about a newborn baby? Or was its moral conscious--that we don't understand--acting out of some Karmic belief that the act of deliberately killing the baby would yield negative Karmic affects on its next life?

The leopard seemed to perceive life as precious, at least in the form of a new born. And we, to some extent, value life. But our understanding of life and death as we know it is limited to our understanding insofar as how we apply our faculties to understand life and death. As far as I understand life and death, I understand it as a cycle of life where what dies feeds the living. Thus a continuous cycle of birth and rebirth. But where does the soul come in? This is the question that defies scientific notions of death, being we just die. If we have a soul that lives separate from our bodies, then why do we consider our souls do die when our bodies die? To me, there is just as much logic in the notion of rebirth as there is heaven, hell, purgatory or a nice long nap (as Socrates described).

The point I'm getting to is that there is just as much reason not to hurt an animal due to ethical reasons as there is not to hurt an animal for Karmic reasons. There are so many dimensions in our world which we are unaware of, to me, the possibility that when a soul dies, it is being born is just as real to me as any other speculative theory about death. They're all speculative--just like when Smuts, "If they relate to us as individuals, and we relate to them as individuals, it is possible for us to have a personal relationship." [7]This speculation draws on the logic of the notion that individuality equates to 'personal' qualities. Smuts elaborates, "The possibility of voluntary, mutual surrender to the dictates of intersubjectivity constitutes the common ground that Aquinas and O'Hearne ignore when they claim that animals and humans cannot be friends." [7]If we believe our actions in this life will have a Karmic effect on the next, not only does this reduce the amount of suffereing we cause but it gives us control over the emotional dilemma of animal rights. If we don't take away their "rights", e.g., their right to live, then we no longer have to fear that we are acting immoral. If we do everything we can as individuals such as refrain from eating meat as part of our daily diet even though we like the taste, then, as Smuts states, "We fear such loss of control, but the gifts we receive in turn make it a small price to pay." [9]

Works cited
[1]http://www.dining-out.co.za/ftp/Logo/KarmaGautengLogo.gif
[2] Coetzee, J.M. Elizabeth Costello (New York: The Penguin Group, 2003) 109
[3]http://bellaciao.org/en/IMG/jpg/suffering_animals.jpg
[4]Coetzee, J.M. Elizabeth Costello (New York: The Penguin Group, 2003)107
[5]Edgerton, Franklin (translations)The Bhagavad Gita(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972)11
[6]Anthology, 309
[7]Anthology, 316
[8]Anthology, 312
[9]Anthology, 312

Videos Cited.
[i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09xBPtJRwhI
[ii]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_06oX8DqrU

Far Out Ecocriticism

I was skeptical as I read Greg Gerrard's chapter on Eco-criticism and animals. There were varying themes of domination, cruelty, bestial metaphors, environmentalism, anthropomorphism, theriomorphism, androids, insensitivity, spectacles, biodiversity and many other problematic analogies drawn. I felt this author made some clever points. The approach was one of the more bizarre readings I have come across simply because it doesn't flow well, yet he manages to make some fantastic points at the same time if you're patient enough to read it. He uses many elements of rhetoric that make good arguments, but combined, it's really hard to comprehend his point. The premises of the argument are sometimes too abstract and riddled with social theories. In the end, we have great ideas strung together without much logical order. But let's take a look at Gerrard and compare his writing's with Philip K. Dick's. Both authors have a complicated and clever style. Perhaps the burden should be left upon the reader's short-term or long-tem response to the reading. Maybe if I read this again, it would seem more coherent. I guess, as of now, I'd say it's clever, yet inconsistent. But I'll try to make some concrete sense of it all.

I found most of the analogies to be strong semantical arguments which left me asking, what conclusions are to be drawn from the arguments in this chapter? There seems to be a lot of open-ended social theory that doesn't provide much insight. In both readings I noticed an underlying rhetorically-driven theme that implies lack of sensitivity resulting in the break down of the ecology, thus predicting [subliminally] our demise. Perhaps because it's from only part of Gerrard's book? And so I must be missing some important underlying theme.... But I thought he was a little over the top by applying so many banters about a wide array of analogies, drawing from a grab bag including Silence of the Lambs; heightening the sensational element by quoting the story of Clarice who tries to save a lamb. Gerrard also notes Lecter is also referred to as "Buffalo Bill",

Clarice grows up and accepts the killing of the lambs . . . but not the screaming that some associate with the mushy, childish, and effeminate side of her constitution. The screaming inside her head must be stopped. She attempts this through metaphor -- Christian lambs and women in need - for screaming lambs. If she rescues Catherine Martin, Clarice might also save herself. (280)

In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter draws on Clarice's sensitivity to screaming of the lambs as she recalled witnessing their slaughtering on a farm where she once lived as a young girl. This portion of the movie and novel has a very dramatic affect. But when you think about the analogy made by Gerrard (that this is themed around our perceptions of animals), and when you consider Clarice's character, how else could you create such drama without involving her sentiments or memories about the murder of some other person? If that were part of the plot, it would detract from Hanibal Lecter's role as the focal point of a movie based on murder and horror. But I digress as I disagree with Gerrard's animal theme. Lecter probes the memories of Clarice and derives a certain pleasure from psychoanalyzing her. In my opinion, where this analogy falls flat is because the emphasis, I think, is on the psychological element, rather than any sort of ecological pseudo-significance implied by the lamb. Below is a scene from the movie, Silence of the Lambs.

Further, I think the author of Silence of the Lambs meant for the lamb's symoblism to be more of a Biblical allusion, implying the evil, murderous character of Lecter delving into the innocence of Clarice, rather than appealing to any underlying animal theme.

Though Gerrard makes a strong semantic argument, he really provides no coherent conclusion. Is there really a connection between Silence of the Lambs and the ecology? I don't think so. I'm not sure how that relates altogether. Of course, lambs are part of the ecology and there were some theriopomorphic qualities added to Buffalo Bill... but how this movie actually affects the ecosystem doesn't seem apparent. He proceeds to speak of animals and biodiversity and uses the example of Flipper, a dolphin, "credited with creating a constituency of young dolphin admirers who, as adults, joined the tuna boycott that transformed fishing practices that are lethal to marine mammals."(284) He provides no evidence that the influx of people boycotting were influenced by Flipper, whatsoever.

Gerrard goes on about The Blue Planet analyzing, "with a contextualizing overview of oceanic ecology that interrelates wind, tides and currents, and stresses movements of nutrients as well as massive migration of species. This contrasts with documentaries that isolate events or individual species, reducing the significance of ecological connections and processes. "(280) Philip K. Dick styles a similar analogy in fictional prose, "I'm not an android. My name is Mercer. I inhabit this building because of Mr. Isidore. The special who had the spider; you talked briefly to him outside." (220) Both texts have an underlying theme of human progress misperceiving nature as an object, which I think is the strongest analogy made in both texts. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep an analogy is made by drawing a parallel between human misperception of the importance of non-human life. Dick's novel takes place in the future, but points out how "progress" could sort of be the catalyst for the big bang that would spark the loss of human compassion and emotion,

For what we meant to each other,"the android said as it approached him, its arms reaching as if to clutch at him. The clothes, he thought, are wrong. But the eyes, the same eyes. And there are more like this; there can be a legion of her, each with its own name, but all Rachael Rosen--Rachael, the prototype, used by the manufacturer to protect the others. (221)

Dick's novel points out insensitivity and lack of compassion for certain aspects of life that makes up earth's biodiversity and has resulted in creating androids to fulfill our human desires. Instead of giving back to nature, we have taken from it and in the novel androids have replaced animals, similar to the way someday androids may replace humans. Our capacity to deny reality is huge. I think that we don't want to know what we really know--our sense of compassion and deep insight into nature is depleting and we are learning to ways to fulfill our human needs--through the creation of false intelligence and false emotions, animated by the life like movements of androids. Will these androids soon change the ways and the laws of the land? Will the public ever rise out of it's apathetic state and awake from the illusion to realize that without using our sympathetic imagination, androids will be in our future catering to human desires which grow shallower and shallower as technology advances and we "progress". The story of "us" is becoming one of pilgrams to androids, which involves a certain level of narcissism. We want to satisfy our needs, because we're in love with our needs. Androids have become part of the solution to the problem of solving our needs. Out with the old and in with the new habits of heart. We're stripping away our sense of reality in exchange for illusion.

Androids are already among us. It's interesting to speculate how many there will be in the near future. But to subvert Gerrard's analogy for my own purposes, I think with the introduction of androids as a substitute for love and human relationships, and a substitute for the roles we have developed in society for humans. Like with hunting where Gerrard writes," There could be no 'sport' in bear-baiting or fox-hunting if the participants are insentient. "(280)I think an analogy can also be drawn that there would be no 'sport' left in life the day we start relying on androids to accomplish human tasks. The underlying theme in both of these texts is that insensitivity to other sentient beings is taking over society's perception in the favor of developing our own progress and our own human perception, whether in tune with reality or not. We tend to forget, that when we use animals that they are part of our ecosystem and when we build infrastructure and drill in the ocean we are advancing mankind's interest without thinking of the future biodiversity that will be affected by the insensitivity that is bread into humans, not from movies, but from social values that end up being depicted in movies. Sure, there are concrete connections to some of these abstract ideas. But knowing where these are derived from is important to distinguish. If we blame it on the movies, we're denying the greed instilled in mankind and we're pretending the issue is Hollywood, when in fact it is human nature and our sense of morality that allows for this perception. In that regard, I disagree with Gerrard, yet I find Dick's novel interestingly abstract and compelling.

Seduction of Analogy

Over analysis?

[1]

I think one of the greatest rhetoricians of all-time was Sigmund Freud. He came up with words like "id", "ego", "super ego". We still use these words today and his theories, whether sound or not, are the cornerstones of basic psychology. But one must keep in mind Freud, like many other great legends, had his not so great moments. He was a user and prescribed cocaine. He once prescribed it to a friend coming off of an opium addiction who later died. Yet, as far as "seduction of analogy" goes, Freud takes the cake. Freud himself is guilty of "seduction of analogy". He theorized about himself and applied it to everyone across the board, "I found in myself a constant love for my mother, and jealousy of my father. I now consider this to be a universal event in childhood."[2] Freud went on with more abstract theories, which he really had no evidence in which to prove them. His fantasies about his mother and theories about totemism are only two example where he had no proof other than clever theories which were, and still are, rhetorically convincing.

Freud sought to anchor this pattern of development in the dynamics of the mind. Each stage is a progression into adult sexual maturity, characterized by a strong ego and the ability to delay gratification (cf. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality). He used the Oedipus conflict to point out how much he believed that people desire incest and must repress that desire. The Oedipus conflict was described as a state of psychosexual development and awareness. He also turned to anthropological studies of totemism and argued that totemism reflected a ritualized enactment of a tribal Oedipal conflict. [3]

Though Freud was able to theorize very convincingly, he was abundantly full of abstractions and theorized with no real concrete body of evidence to support his theories. That talent alone is why he he is amongst the great rhetoricians--simply because he was so convincing to so many. But again I argue Freud was basing his theories solely on parallels and literature that he had read. And my theory is that he fantasized while he was reading Sophocles' Oedipus. Then he developed theories from his particular experience and applied them universally, which flies in the face of logic. Freud lived in a world of abstract fantasies and falsehoods, which he believed were true based on his own existential evidence and cocaine usage. His own experiences became the object on which he elaborated theories. But most turned out to be mere "Freudian Fantasy". Take, for instance, his prescribing of cocaine to his friend that later led to his death. He thought he was doing is friend a favor, but because it was only his theory that cocaine was good he suffered the consequences of "the seduction of analogy". In this case, there is a morbid element of irony in that he coined the phrase " seduction of analogy". As I further reduce my view of Freud to somewhat of a pseudo-scientist, I do believe that he truly was a great rhetorician. Which brings me to the cliche' of Nazi analogies and Hitler. But I also think there is one theory of Freud's we can apply here. I think it's safe that Hitler lacked a super-ego (sense of morality) and was severely conflicted between his childlike desire and his inner moral code.

In his later work, Freud proposed that the psyche could be divided into three parts: ego, super-ego, and id. The id is known as the child-like portion of the psyche that is very impulsive and only takes into account what it wants and disregards all consequences. The super-ego is the moral code of the psyche that solely follows right and wrong and takes into account no special circumstances in which the morally right thing may not be right for that situation. Finally, the ego is the balance between the two. It is the part of the psyche that is, usually, portrayed in the person's action, and after the super-ego and id are balanced, the ego acts in a way that takes both impulses and morality into consideration. [4]

[4]

Now if you argue with me here, you've lost the debate before it started. Hitler is amongst the world's most elite rhetoricians. But I think it's safe to say that he used rhetoric in a way that lacked compassion, and I definitely think the only person he was able to sympathize with was himself. To the extent that he was convincing, there is no doubt. Hitler persuaded Nazi generals, and those commanded by them, to carry out mass murder using the most unthinkable, inhumane and immoral methods possible. Then disposing of their bodies like garbage in mass graves. The world was watching as America moved in and Hitler was finally defeated. But not after a mass loss of lives, or after bearing the huge cost of war. But the seduction of analogy is what made Hitler amongst the most powerful and elite rhetoricians to ever live. Hitler's analogy was that of "cultural evolution", being that the Jews showed characteristics less evolved than Germans, thus were inferior Hitler wanted to "put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created." [5] He spread this mantra using parallels to religious and evolutionary theories, to the extent where it was widely acceptable and had it not been for the intervention of the United States and a few other countries, Hitler may have gotten his wish by virtually annihilating the Jews. His ability to accomplish this came from his talent of using persuasive rhetoric. This video of the Holocaust is not an example of good leadership:

[6]

Which brings me to a quote from the anthology, "Whether the Holocaust could ever be a part of any analogy, much less this one, has been regularly debated and disputed. It is the event beyond analogy, many people say. And yet it is part of oblique analogies every day." [7] I think the key word here is oblique. My opinion is that you can never truly compare the suffering of the Holocaust to the suffering of animals because of the magnitude of suffering associated with human suffering and the sheer evil involved with that Nazis. In my opinion, human suffering is a much greater dilemma. Though a digression I think worth noting is our existence is reliant upon the ecosystem, so if we don't take care of that, then we'll induce our own suffering. So there is a sort of rhyme to being compassionate towards nature, but the comparison to animals being systematically slaughtered to the systematic murdering of the Jews is preposterous based on the ground that the Holocaust entailed human suffering. But thats not to say that I agree with another important rhetorician to this discussion, Immanuel Kant. I do think there are some parallels, but the only real use is within the realm of "seduction of analogy". The comparisons lie in how inhumane and systematic the Jews were murdered and the way we systematically kill animals. The key difference being we have customs and principles derived from these customs called laws that say murdering a human being is wrong. Does this mean that killing an animal is not wrong? To the extent Immanuel Kant believes it is not immoral, I disagree. I think there is a balance between the two. From J.M Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, the author criticizes philosophers Plato and Descarte,

"The universe is built upon reason. God is a God of reason. The fact that through the application of reason we can come to understand the rules by which the universe works proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to follow tis rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being: that man is godlike, animals thinglike." [7]

Personally, I think reason is part of the universe. Reasonably, we have to accept suffering to a certain extent, yet at the same time realize that since we can reasonably recognize suffering that we can also reasonably reduce it through our actions. Since we deny animals the ability to reason, they aren't held to the same moral codes as we are. But since we can reason, we're inhumane, at best, if we torture and animal. Regarding suffering, I argue there are different magnitudes. My reasoning tells me animals do suffer, unlike the reasoning of philosopher and rhetorician Immanuel Kant. Below we have the Immanuel Kant finger puppet. Immanuel Kant reasoned "with regard to animals, the implications of his intuition that reason may not be the being of the universe but on the contrary merely the being of the human brain." [9]

[10]

But I think modern science can prove the existence of intelligence in animals. Modern animal behavioral studies prove that dolhins, dogs and apes all have some intelligence outside of what is merely instinctual, e.g., the ability to recognize and translate words into meaning. So, I think this alone proves Immanuel Kant wrong. My guess, however, is that we do have it right. With modern science we can see that animals can reason. So if they can reason, it stand to reason that they can certainly feel. Or how would they be able to reason without feelings. And so my analogy lies somewhere in between all the rhetorical abstractions. I think the findings in science have given us our answers. And it's up to us to find our own moral answers from looking at the empirical data science has provided, as well as what should be intuitive to most. The below you tube demonstrates how animals reason in similar ways that we do, that is if you compare the scientific similarities.

[11]

As far as the "seduction of analogy", it seems I've gotten carried away with my own rhetorical rant. But I'm just trying to find some middle ground, using a practical approach to this whole moral problem. It seems there hasn't been many who have written on what seems to be a popular opinion in class. People are going to eat animals, but to what degree do we allow our consciouses to allow them to be slaughtered in such grueling and torturous ways? Aside from the fictional parallels to slavery and the holocaust that bear their questioning in their own, unique rights, the question of animal humanities is another separate question that bears moral consideration. But I think, as Coetzee points out we have to be careful with 'false metaphors'. The analogy between ants and slavery is an erroneous one. And though we have to be able to sympathize with all forms of life, for our own survival (even ants), we have to also demonstrate good sense in where we draw the line between rhetoric and reality.

.

[12]

Vs.

[13]

Reality?

[1] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2568885001_04750b4cc6.jpg?v=0

[2] http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[3]http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[4]]http://www.11th-hour.info/images/hitler.jpg

[5]http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/nazis.htm

[6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aaf-4aL9VE

[7]Coetzee, J.M,Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003),p 67

[8]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[9]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[10]http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/kantbig.gif

[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVX54u5Gho8

[12]http://www.minhwind.com/zoom/rhetoric02.jpg

[13]http://www.crystalinks.com/illusionpeak.jpg

Ahimsika (P1)

[1]

It was almost closing time. The neon sign was flipped to read "closed" just after I entered the door and took my seat at the table. I felt special to be the last customer in the joint. I was tired and decided to stop for a bite to eat and treat myself to a cup of coffee with hopes of warming up my weary soul.

It had been a long day. It felt good to sit back and relax as I let out a sigh and reflected upon it. I fumbled with my cell phone and gave a half glance upward as the waitress delivered my food and coffee. I hadn't really noticed my surroundings until now. I gave a brief nod, and inevitably a stare at The Dude whom I could not disengage from, though I wanted to. An uncomfortable silence ensued. I thought to myself something seems very different about The Dude. Then I thought The Dude might not be much different than me. But then again, this whole thing does seem rather silly.

The Dude wanted to know my name, why I came and where I was from. I was a little skeptical to let The Dude know details about who I was. It seemed revealing anything about myself might be delving into matters too personal to discuss with such a peculiar stranger. Besides, I'm sort of a loner as The Dude also seemed to be.

As The Dude asked me personal questions, I drew a blank stare. As I listened, I remained skeptically attentive, yet still very drawn towards The Dude at the same time. There was a mysterious vibe about The Dude. And The Dude was sweaty and greasy. I was not quite able to grasp the mysteriousness of The Dude, though I was curious about The Dude's intrinsic nature. What was The Dude thinking? How was The Dude feeling? Was The Dude bothered by something? I sat and pondered this before I asked a few background questions like where he was from. He told me this was The Dude's country, that he had happened himself upon a Blizzard and was supporting himself with the bread of two companions. One wore heals, the other wore a bun as he described. He went on that he was caught in a dilemma between both, as well as a few other "ripe items", referring to the dressing. I took another sip of coffee and downed a few fries. And The Dude cooled down next to the Blizzard.

[2]

"You know", I said. "You really shouldn't describe those supporting you with bread as 'ripe items'. Essentially, you're objectifying those to whom you ascribe such connotative terms." 

The Dude scoffed and replied, "You don't quite understand. I'm the object of objectification--the epitome. Besides, this is my last night here. You seem intuitive enough to know that within a few moments, I'll be long gone. And you'll probably never remember our encounter, nor will you ever hear from me again."

I slumped in my chair as the reality of The Dude's words sunk in like words have never sunken in before. I sipped on my coffee attempting to bring about a more pleasant sensation than the one I was experiencing. Thoughts of guilt crossed my mind that I could not stop pondering. I stewed over them as I sat next to The Dude. The longer I thought, the colder and colder The Dude seemed, and the colder and colder I seemed. I sat there listlessly, feeling conflicted.

My mind fluctuated back and forth thinking about why it was I had really entered the restaurant. I came in here with seemingly good intentions. Yet, at the moment, I didn't feel so good about being here or my intentions.

[3]

Then The Dude said it, "What are you waiting for? You've already gotten me in this predicament between this bun and this heal. I didn't ask to be here. In fact, to the contrary, I felt very opposed to the matter. But here I am just like you wanted me--fried, battered and between a heal and a bun."

My eyebrow raised. "But I never thought about your feelings."

[4]

The Dude replied, "That seems to be the case with so many of your kind."

I sat in agreement. "But I never meant to hurt you," I replied.

The Dude sat still while many moments passed and the guilt that came over me became deeper and deeper. I started to get up from the table as The Dude whispered sternly, "Wait. If you go now, it won't make a difference. And my life will have been for naught."

Confused I asked, "What do you mean?"

The Dude said, "Look, I can sympathize with your dilemma. But have a seat before you go. Before I go, I'd like to share something with you in hopes it will make a difference and may help you along your journey through life."

"OK", I replied. The Dude said, "I'm inclined to agree with you when you say you didn't mean to hurt me. But by saying you didn't mean to hurt me doesn't change my current dilemma, now does it?"

"Not quite," I responded.

I stared down at The Dude and realized The Dude was much like me. As each similar attribute crossed my mind, I began to feel like the lowliest creature on earth--worse than scum. I had taken for granted The Dude's feelings; the fact The Dude could feel and the fact that The Dude could think. I felt so terrible that I wanted to run away. I took a bite of The Dude and chewed and chewed and chewed. And gulp, I swallowed. It was the only way I could cope with the overwhelming sense of guilt. I felt a sense of urgency and began to take another tasty bite.

"Wait!" The Dude exclaimed. "Not so fast!" I paused, startled. "Look," said The Dude. "I can see you're struggling with your ethical consciousness. You're doing your Self no favors by continuing to live this way." Again, The Dude convinced me to pause. He asked, "Might I share something with you that may find valuable after I'm gone?"

I contemplated silencing The Dude in one bite, but the combination of my conscious coupled with my curiosity led me to pause my jaw just before I bit down. I made sure no one was looking. The red Dairy Queen light dimmed and quickly turned off. I took it as my cue to hurry things up. And I was tempted to comply with the workers' gestures begging for my riddance. My hunger was beginning to override my conscious and The Dude seemed more and more tasty and less anthropomorphic by the second. But curiosity caused me to pause and think about who The Dude was.

[5]

What is this knowledge you speak of? A virtue?" I asked.

"We shall consider it bites of knowledge," replied The Dude. I sat skeptically waiting for The Dude to explain.

"Bites of knowledge, eh?"

"Precisely," explained The Dude. "Allow me to start with the facts. I would first like to dispel the myth of Immanuel Kant, the philosopher who claimed that we animals have no ability to reason like humans. If this were true, we would not be having this conversation, now would we Ben?"

"Granted," I said. "But are we having this conversation?"

The Dude seemed to grow irritable and asked, "I don't know, are we?" I was thinking of an answer when The Dude interrupted and began, "Take it for what it's worth. You can chalk it up to struggling with your emotional intelligence, your hyperactive imagination or a struggle within your ethical conscious. In fact, I don't care if you choose all of the above as long as you listen. What I have to share with you is important and if you listen will make the world a better place where there is less suffering. I see you're burdened by the way you've perceived me, treated me and taken away my rights." A frown came over my face and I began to realize...

I said, "I never even considered your rights. But now that I have, I know I don't want to take them away from you or any other Dude in the future."

"Splendid!" exclaimed The Dude. "It seems you are on the right path to enlightenment. Now if you can justly lead the way with what I'm about to say, you can really make an impact on the future of other Dudes by reducing the amount Dudes suffer before they arrive at Dairy Queen to be ordered by fast food customers like you who are gracious enough to order The Dude."

"Well, tell me." I said.

The Dude replied, "Insofar as my ability to feel pain, I am just like you. In fact, all other animals can feel pain just like you. By hurting me, you are committing a morally wrong act. In fact, by hurting any living thing you are hurting another individual's Self."

"I see," I replied. "But I didn't hurt you directly."

Then The Dude went on, "I know you're not the same individual who strung me up by my hind legs and cut my throat with a dull knife. I know you're not that burly guy who told a joke about stupid cows as he filled a bucket with my oozing blood. You're not the one who tormented my soul whilst I hung from ceiling shackles as I faded in and out of consciousness; bleeding and dying slowly. But you are contributing to the treatment of other animals by supporting the consumption of Dudes such as my Self."

[6]

The concept of supply and demand seemed absurd as my heart dropped to my stomach. And I hurriedly asked, "How do I change?"

"Simple," replied The Dude. "One should adhere to the principle of Ahimsa. Ahimsa is the principle of not harming any living being. And by the looks of you, you could start by going vegetarian. Eating me has had a bearing on your conscious. You see, Ahimsa applies to every living being including you. By eating me, you have harmed your conscious and your Self. Ahimsa starts with not harming your Self, but along with this reasoning comes not harming other beings, too, because it causes suffering. Thus it is morally wrong. Do you see?"

"It has become clear," I said. "I have now been enlightened by your wise bite of knowledge. And though I will now eat you, my vision for the future has changed. I will apply this principle of Ahimsa to every facet of my life, every decision I make and especially everything I eat. I will, on your behalf and from now on, commit no action causing, directly or indirectly, another being to suffer. I will lead the way in supporting groups such as PETA and those who support inhumane slaughtering of animals who suffer as a result of unethical treatment. I will set an example for others who have not heard your voice and I will speak for you in order to convince others that eating meat causes suffering. And I will be compassionate insofar as I will suffer with you, for your cause and to reduce the amount of suffering in the future. And after I eat this final burger, I will only eat and promote the consumption of meatless burgers. This is my vision."

[7]

I stared at The Dude returning a look of blankness. "Do you have any other words of wisdom to share before I eat you?" I asked.

The cash register closed as I heard the clank of the side door lock. I looked at my watch and it was 10:15 pm. "We close at 10:00, sir." said the manager. I pondered my new state of enlightenment and how beneficial my new vision of practicing Ahimsa would be to me and others, and how excited I was to share this ethical principal. This, I thought, is invaluable knowledge that I will share with many people in the future, setting an example by doing!

As I drove home from Dairy Queen, I could not bring myself to eat The Dude. Yet The Dude remained silent as though I had permission. When I arrived, I found the Dude had made such a great impact on my vision of leadership and set such a positive ethical example that I had to find closure. So I mourned and grieved. And I felt bereaved enough to bury The Dude in my backyard under a peach tree. And at that same moment, I buried my willingness to ever eat meat again.

[8]

Word Count - 2,119
[1]http://www.portlandground.com/RosewayMadisonSouth/2004-10-30-DairyQueen-82nd0.jpg

[2]http://www.dabbledoo.com/ee/images/uploads/gamertell/dq_blizzard.jpg

[3]http://media.houstonpress.com/moovin-on-up.113560.51.jpg
[4]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2909696586_724df64c1e_o.jpg

[5]http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/cow-tongue.jpg

[7]http://blogs.trb.com/entertainment/urbanite/blog/zen1.JPG

[8]http://www.algi.qc.ca/asso/zami/tombstone%20cartoon.gif

Time for Emotions

Would I pass the Emotional Test?

(Click Below)

[1]

 Leon relates to David Powell because neither one of them have emotional intelligence. Anyone who murders another human being without just cause lacks emotional intelligence.

I'm not a psychology major, I'm merely a proud English major. I do firmly believe, however, that I would pass the emotional test. On the basis of my [English major] theory, I argue that a fundamental part of emotion is fear, whether it be suffering, dying, failing, losing at love or competition or experiencing any sort of tragedy, self-imposed or other wise. If you don't believe this, think about the fear in your life, what it is and why you're scared of it. You'll soon find out a lot about yourself from pondering your own fears. But I digress. I would pass the emotional test for three reasons. 

1.Tragedy will occur in our lives at some point. More likely than this, we'll witness many tragedies before we meet our final destiny of death. Accepting this as part of life is a tool in dealing with emotions, though not forgetting them. The reaper is coming for us all, at some point. There is no denying that for any living being. We know this from observing everyone who has died after living a certain number of years, experiencing only a certain number of seasons before the reaper comes to harvest our bodily being as we know it. We'll all die--of something. Fear is something of an emotion we associate with various aspects of our lives depending on what kind of personality one might have. So it seems to reason that we should live every day like it is our last, almost fearless. But this usually involves goals.  We have a tendancy to focus on one area of our lives more than the other, thus neglecting some aspect of an emotion in favor of a goal. I'm not always good at balancing the two, but I try. And I think I'm getting better at it. I'm actually able to find some spare time for other things these days. Last year, that wasn't necessarily the case. I felt somewhat like an android, simply existing to accomplish the next mundane task. I also dealt with a few tragedies, and am still dealing with tragic matters. But the fact that i'm here, along with my fellow classmates who have faced their own tragedies, in spite of life's harsh circumstances indicates I'm not a quitter when it comes to emotions. Life happens. It makes you stronger. I haven't lost compassion, but I've learned to deal with tragedy. 

2. For me, being able to be inspired by emotion is one of my greatest assets. Often times, I have been inspired by emotion that later drove me to a turning point in my life. Whether I made a mistake that made me take an introspective look that resulted in me making a change for the better, or whether it was from observing someone else's emotion and sympathizing with it, I seem to be able to learn from emotion. But, sometimes, I feel crappy during the day because I have such a heavy workload. Sometimes, this becomes a burden on me. But then I try to turn this burden into a positive, or inspiring emotion (I live for spiting difficulty). Feelings are the key to making choices, as we can understand by listening to the program below. It's a story of Elliot who develops a brain tumor and loses his ability to feel emotions. The hosts of the program delve into the scientific findings of feelings. In some experiments, people can even put a number on how they feel about losing versus winning. In almost everything we do, in every decision we make, there are feelings involved.  The below discusses the story of not only Elliot, but the many facets of emotions underlying our choices and free will. 

 [2]

In my busy life at UT, I get caught up in the inevitable academic endeavors which involves neglecting compassion towards others at times in favor of my own personal goals. . Compassion is defined as, "{dag} 1. Suffering together with another, participation in suffering; fellow-feeling, sympathy. Obs.  [3]

3. I care. I'm such a bleeding heart, when I think about it. That's why I'm here at UT. I sometimes neglect my emotions because I realize other people are suffering and I want to help. Though some may say an aspiring lawyer has no compassion, I disagree.

But even I often get caught up in my own activities which involve my fears of not accomplishing my goals, I still think about things I "neglect" for lack of a better term and I know that I care.  I'm somewhat of a perfectionist, but I'm getting better at my fear of failing. Though sometimes I do feel like sort of an android because of all the demands entailed with meeting my goals. I have a fear, I guess, of being like Luba, "The artificial life force animating them seemed to fail if pressed to far . . . at least in some. But not all." [4]

Maintaining emotional intelligence is sort of an oxymoron because feelings are so relative to the individual and what they consider to be intelligent. But I do think there is such a thing. And though it may be hard to grasp, it can even be proven some people lack emotional intelligence altogether. When I watched Earthlings, I tried not to be disturbed by the images of animals being abused. There was even sort of an emotional shut off of sorts because I know that is reality and empirically those animals are being abused. But these are the things that drive me to wake up every day, in spite of the fear of failing, and backpack my way across the forty acres, as my brain soaks in thoughts and emotions contemplating all of the suffering and injustices in the world.... And all of a sudden.....  I see professor Bump feeding turtles down at the turtle pond with his grandchildren. I startle him as I say, "Professor Bump!"  I hope I don't cause him to fall over into the pond as I catch him red-handed feeding the turtles with his daughter and granddaughters. "A little animal compassion", says Professor Bump as his granddaughter tries to grab his attention away from me, "Grandpa!", she says.  I get a brief introduction as my scholarly demands pull me away from the delightful scene. And I think about a quote from the course anthology, "The key to intuiting another's feelings is in the ability to read nonverbal channels: tone of voice, gesture, facial expression, and the like." [5]  I walked away in admiration of my professor feeding turtles with his grandchildren who were obviously very glad to be there feeding the turtles. I could not only hear it in their voices, but see it in their faces--the excitement. 

For the brief moment in which I paused while pressed for time, it reminded me about being young and so excited about animals; how when you're young your imagination runs wild. . . . and I thought to myself that compassion is a very crucial element to teaching. I know I, and others, feel a lot of pressure in learning academics, but it's not something that involves a lot of feelings, compassion or excitement. Yet it seems even the turtles at UT have compassion. 

 [6]

 

And so I contemplate the meaning of compassion and the sympathetic imagination. I wonder to myself, could I, perhaps, use the sympathetic imagination approach to facing my fears such as swimming with sharks? I'm terrified of the ocean, though that doesn't mean I wish any harm to sharks. I've just been exposed to the (mis)representation of sharks as "dangerous" animals, when I know the data about them reflects otherwise. Still, yet I feel these fears and they stir my emotions. Even my emotions scare me and the emotions inside of those emotions within the core of those emotions and so on. And as I contemplate the story of Elliot, I'm thankful I'm not like him. Though I think monitoring and controlling your emotions is a valuable skill to have. I also think expressing emotions and delving into your fears is a healthy thing that ultimately makes you a more intelligent person and more in touch with your sympathetic imagination.

 [7]

Face your fears. . . .

====

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3h70aRFxQ

[2]http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/14
[3]Course anthology, p. 236
[4] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 132
[5]Course anthology (emotional intelligence), p258

[6]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/39/120487714_1127153d82.jpg?v=0 

[7]http://dvice.com/pics/fear_shark.jpg

Animal Rights/ Racism

Parallels of History and Present

 [0]

When I looked at the date in which Am I Blue was published (1986), I was surprised it wasn't written in, or before, the Victorian era.  In the story, there are stark parallels between our history of treating animals and slaves , which are quite possibly alluding to a call for a higher moral code within 1986's time and setting. That is, if we're taking a parallelistic approach. . .  In this particular story, it blends both slavery and animal rights as a way to achieve the moral of the story as the reader is left conflicted.  Walker concludes the story with a short paragraph, "As we talked of freedom and justice one day for all, we sat down to steaks. I am eating misery, I thought, as I took the first bite. And spit it out" [1] Walker mentions 'freedom' and 'justice' before he alludes to misery in the same paragraph. Our country's system of justice entailed a whole lot of suffering-- the suffering of slaves who were treated like animals for their labor. Therein lies merely one parallel that can be drawn from this inhumane treatment. Just the other day, I was watching a media program and the news caster was talking about the achievements we've made as a country because Barak Obama, a black man, would be inaugurated. Below we can see a brief summary of this and how it relates to today and how suffering came before "freedom" and "justice". 

 [2]

Even after the United States' freedom and justice was established, our society still had prejudices, racism and mistreatment of African Americans and other "non-white" Americans.  Racial minorities and women suffered through a great deal throughout our history, and they still suffer from our history to this very day. I've heard the historians argument being they were well-fed and not all of them were beaten if they complied with their slave master.  Some of them even worked alongside the slaves, they say. And while that argument may be true, it's still a slap in the face to anyone who'd enjoy their freedom. It seems we live in a fantasy we live in is animals want to be slaughtered, as long as we treat them nicely and led them roam our nice green field--before their trip to the slaughter house.  We assume, perhaps falsely, that animal are here to serve us; and we often don't think about their suffering for our needs atop of the food chain. Walker makes an effective analogy between speciesism, racism and sexism all within a short paragraph. I found her writing to be quite obscure, but also effective at getting a tough message across within a short story. 

They are the great-grandchildren of those who honestly though, because someone taught them this "Women can't think," and "niggers can't faint." But most disturbing of all, in Blue's large brown eyes was a new look, more painful than the look of despair; the look of disgust with human beings, with life; the look of hatred. And it was odd what the look of hatred did. It gave him, for the first time, the look of a beast. And what that meant was that he had put up a barrier within to protect himself from further violence; and all the apples in the world wouldn't change that fact. [3]

In the documentary Earthlings,  Joaquin Phoenix refers to people who reply "don't tell me, you'll spoil my dinner" when informed what the animal went through before it got on their plate. [4] It seems similar to the reasoning I often hear when I confront a racist with just why it is they are racist. They may even offer "proof" by citing college admission rates and standardized test scores. Phoenix says, "We've bitten the hand that feeds us; we've stomped and spit on it." [5] Like an ungracious lion, indeed we have bitten the hand that feeds us. 

 [6]

Today, I think we've made "progress" in the most positive sense of the word. Sure, racism still exists and I was alive in 1986. I've been around since Hip Hop first began in the Bronx. I still remember the days when I went to Catholic School in Lima Ohio and our elementary school was segregated. There was no attempt on the teachers' part to integrate or assimilate the African-American kids into the classroom. I've read the history and studied the issue of slavery as a means of understanding history and society--to seemingly make sense out of a chaotic world. When I consider all that we've gone through as a country, on one hand I'm happy. On the other, my thoughts alarm me that we must not forget history--nor try to re-write it to suit selfish needs. Rather, we should embrace where we are now. Yet at the same time, we should bear in mind just what Bentham was saying when he wrote,

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well to determine what we shall do.  On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. 

Fortunately, the causes and effects have led us to somewhat of a positive point. Though I argue there are tough times ahead as a country. The causes of the past, i.e. slavery, have not thus effected the present effect. Because while we may not be making many strides as far as animal rights, we have indeed made some positive steps towards overcoming racial barriers by electing Barak Obama. 

Personally, I'm glad we've moved on. I laughed when I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and felt like asking our previous president a quote directly from the book, "What do you do, roam around killing people and telling yourself they're androids?" [7]

[8]

George W. Bush pretty much screwed the pooch over the last 8 years. All we can do now is hope.  As of now, I remain skeptical because of Obama because he is a politician within the bipartisan system and is part of Washington. But as far as who he is, I believe if his intentions lie in the right place that he can indeed make a change for the better. When I voted for him, his color wasn't even a factor. I believe he was the better-suited candidate. Yet I hope as I remain skeptical, given my past, given our past. . . . 

[9]

[0]http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q269/existens77/BzAnimalRightsCartoon07.jpg
[1]Course anthology, p 245F

[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AydvldZvnOE

[3]Course anthology, p 245E 

[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39R2mvifdjE&feature=related

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39R2mvifdjE&feature=related

[6]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/88924283_740240f5c3_o.jpg

[7] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 110

[8]http://plison.agora.eu.org/blog/files/images/bush_looking_stupid.jpg

[9]http://www.socialsignal.com/system/files/u4/obama_hope.jpg

Derrida, Animals and Us

[1]

Speciesism, or, Humanocentrism is the centric view that only human beings are of moral significance. Theoretically, then, any concern or compassion we might have have for non-human beings results in taking away moral concern for animals in favor of human interests. For example, if we help animals by rejecting practices of experimentation, testing, eating them and even torturing animals for our own entertainment, then by doing so, we take away moral concern from animals in favor of people. . . . So in summary, humanocentrists reject animal welfare in favor of human welfare. Below we see the rejection of animal welfare, along with the abandonment of their ethical treatment, in favor of human welfare. Warning: What you are about to see may be graphic.

 [2] 
[2]

A sociologist might call it dominating nature to acquire human needs or wants. An economist, might call it meeting a demand or certain wants, which are only limited by human imagination and our ability to acquire or achieve those wants. In other words, we have nearly a limitless amount of power over nature. And, if it so happens to meet out desires, we can take from it nearly as much as we want. We engineer, market and finance the production of animals to the point that we have specialized divisions of labor to fulfill human needs, which are interdependent on delicate eco-systems, as well as political and economic infrastructures. A lot can go wrong within these delicate ecosystems and infrastructures. 

As a result, we humans become incredibly vulnerable and potentially less self-sufficient or "sustainable". Ironically, the system set up to sustain us also poses serious vulnerability due to potential for contamination and food borne diseases that can spread.  Within the interdependency of the mass food industry, its fragile infrastructure (from the labor force to the animals produced and sold at the cost of their own suffering) lurks a danger. This danger conceivably causes a greater potential for a smaller group of people to have a larger, negative impact on ethical aspects production, distribution and consumption because of the interdependency within the infrastructure of the mass-distribution of food; the interdependency tied up with production, distribution and consumption that is involved economically--not to mention from a basic, systematic survival standpoint as well as potential political dangers. This is freightening and causes me to believe we need to re-think our social reasoning and our ethical reasoning because of the long-term affect it may have on us "humans" as a species. More importantly, we ought to re-think our approach to the interpretation and understanding of how our ethical reasoning plays into our future happiness and survivability as a species. As Derrida is noted for [his], "thinking turns on a structuralist understanding of language as as system of differential relationships, in which concepts acquire significance only in relation to other concepts. No concept is autonomous or exists independent of the generative process of differentiation". [3]

In other words, Derrida essentially thinks social concepts play into the concepts of eco-systems, the eco-systems affect the economy, the economy plays into ethics, ethics play into the anthropological, the anthropological is tied up with the psychological and the philosophical, pity, compassion, sympathy, empathy, greed, racism and so on. . . None of them directly related absolutely, rather absolutely all indirectly inter-related. To categorize them all neatly as animals is absurd. The text/anthology refers to this approach as "deconstructionism". I think a more modern term might be "interdisciplinary" or even "multidisciplinary". When considering the problems of animal rights, we might want to consider various linguistic or semantical aspects of the term "animal rights", using how we perceive it pragmatically, psychologically and philosophically. Derrida's poses, "All that is well known; we have no need to dwell on it. However one interprets it, whatever practical, technical, scientific, juridical, ethical, or political consequence one draws from it, no one can deny this event any more, no one can deny the unprecedented proportions of this subjection of the animal."  [4]


Animal kindness aside, when I stop and consider the actual potential for a bio-hazard disaster in a society that assembly-line produces and distributes animals in such careless, inhumane ways, and how susceptible this makes us to tragedy, error or even terror, I find this reflects not only our nakedness as moral beings being looked at by the animals, thoughtless enough to think they're not looking back at us, but I also find how unable we are to see within society and relate how our own dogmatic beliefs play into these uses of our human power to control nature, controlled not only by controlling "animals", by mutilating and slaughtering them, but also by controlling humans from a rhetorical standpoint to accept this behavior as being morally just.

Without a voice, they are looking at us. And we have allowed ourselves the right to look upon animals and perpetuate a moral way of thinking that only serves our own moral significance. But when we consider all the things associated with our relationship with animals, we notice that our wants triumph our actual needs, our minds left controlled by dogmatic beliefs, syllogistic logic or dualities of good and/or bad. It soon becomes that feeling has no reason to be reckon with. Seemingly, we concieve that animals have no feelings. Hence, as Derrida wrote,

War is waged over the matter of pity. This war probably has no age but, and here is my hypothesis, it is passing through a critical phase. We are passing through that phase and it passes through us. To think the war we find ourselves waging is not only a duty, a responsibility, an obligation, it is also a necessity, a constraint that, like it or not, directly or indirectly, everyone is held to. Henceforth and more than ever. And I can say "to think" this war, because I believe it concerns what we call "thinking". The animal looks at us, and we are naked before it. Thinking perhaps begins there." [5]

According to Eartlings, Pfiesteria piscicida is an example of a spreading bio-hazard, 1,000 miles away from the shore. Not only is there an utterly clear moral issue of the ethical treatment of animals, but the level of awareness should be raised. The public isn't aware of everything entailed with the discourse of "animal rights". Frankly, I think most people would agree animals need to be treated more humanely. And if we're going to execute them, we should to it in the most humane way possible, regardless of cost. The term "animal rights" is a tough one to pin down. And I sort of agree with Derrida. As soon as you use the term "animal", you've lost the battle because you've stopped thinking and grouped them all into the same category... "animals". This is where Derrida's philosophy, or reasoning, comes into play. And I found pondering his writings a rather interesting experience. To achieve a greater state of being,  we must first think in terms differently than strictly deductively or inductively. We must combine various lines of thinking in order to achieve the highest insight to ourselves and the world around us as is humanely obtainable. I think when we're able to do that and tap into our not only our highest level of thoughts, but our highest level of being as well. 

Jeremy Bentham once said something like, "The question is not to know whether the animal can think, reason, or talk, something we still pretend to be asking ourselves". [6] 

I'm almost certain what he meant by that is we pretend that animals cannot feel, because we lack capacity to take exercise our empathy and compassion to think from a non-humanocentric viewpoint. Because animals serve our needs and wants, because they've been deeply imbedded into our daily customs, we have organized our thoughts to think along the lines of "animal rights" either being good or bad.  Not  only should we consider Bentham's question, "But is there any reason why we should be suffered to torment them?" [7] We should also use our sympathetic imagination, which is defined as, "The act of identification consists not in reading into the object subjective feelings aroused by it in the observer, but in perceiving, by instinctive but spacious insight, the essential character and reality of the object itself." [8] 

And whenever we read into the object, or the animal, we then find our own answers. As my great professor once wrote when referring to the sympathetic imagination, "In the questions of human nature, therefore, such as those concerning the creative process, the emphasis in the arts and the humanities often remains on individuals". [9] 

My personal answer lies with in the definition of "animal" and perhaps an allusion to Derrida's view. Definition: b. With the. The animal nature in man: cf. BEAST. n. 1c. [10]. Which leaves me pondering the title of "The Animal That Therefore I Am".  

Another answer to this particular question of human nature is that I am a humanimal. Therefore, since I share similar traits of feelings and suffering, I should act towards my fellow sentient beings with compassion and kindness, rather than as some being who was born to serve my needs. That's why I've recently become a born again vegetarian.  Now my vegetarian friends approve of me--just like in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, "they'll look down on you. Not all of hem, but some. You know how people are about not taking care of an animal; they consider it immoral and anti-empathetic." [11]

[12]

[1] http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/EPH/8792.jpg
[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxwNk3nX0A0
[3]p 216, Course anthology
[4]p 225 Course anthology
[5]p 228, Course antholgy

[6] 226, Course anthology

[7] p 245 Course anthology

[8]p 241, Course anthology

[9]p 333, E 375 course anthology

[10] p 230, Course anthology

[11] Phillip, K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), p 13

[12] http://www.marceljacob.com/jss/anx-covers/humanimal-cd.jpg