{"id":766411,"date":"2021-12-24T08:20:38","date_gmt":"2021-12-24T13:20:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=766411"},"modified":"2021-12-24T09:17:23","modified_gmt":"2021-12-24T14:17:23","slug":"the-silence-of-the-beasts-and-the-words-of-fools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=766411","title":{"rendered":"‘The Animal That Therefore I Am’: The silence of the beasts and the words of fools"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

The use in the singular of a general concept like \u2018animal\u2019 is disturbing. Every time we say \u2018animal\u2019, every time a philosopher or someone else says in the singular and without adding anything else, \u2018animal\u2019, he thus claims to refer to every living being except man.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

SHANNON BAILEY:<\/strong> One can say about animals what Nietzsche said about books (at least about all the books he wrote before him), that is, they suspect that they are apologizing for man. Talking about animals has always been the best way to talk about man, his difference, and his uniqueness. Aristotle\u2019s living without logos, insensitive Cartesian machines, as well as Heidegger\u2019s \u201cpoor beings in the world\u201d is a mirror of all that man is not, and in this way, the best way to get an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat ought to be authentic. Animals act as an exhibition model, the better we know them, the more we know about ourselves…<\/em><\/p>\n

In the millenarian tradition of self-analysis, man looked at himself through the lens of an animal to discover himself, but above all to realize himself differently each time. And since the glasses have two lenses, we can say that another very effective filter with which the man focused his image was madness…<\/em><\/p>\n

The formation of madness as a mental illness, at the end of the eighteenth century, portends the interruption of dialogue, lays the separation as it has already been acquired, and plunges into oblivion all those imperfect words in which the exchange of madness with the mind occurred. The language of psychiatry, which is the monologue of reason over madness, could prove itself only on this silence. I did not want to make the history of this language, but rather to make of this silence the archeology…<\/em><\/p>\n

Indeed, in the gallery of mirrors that from time to time exhibited the \u201cauthentic\u201d image of man, that which the word represents undoubtedly occupies a privileged place. Man is many things, but first of all he is the animal that speaks, he is the living being \u201con the way to language\u201d. And if this is true, then other animals can only be silent. But not. Animals also talk, and how…<\/em><\/p>\n

Not only do animals talk, they also have accents. On the coast of San Francisco, for example, fifty miles from each other, in Marin, Berkeley, and Sunset Beach, live three communities of white crown sparrows who speak three different dialects… The naturalist notes that many birds learn, copy and pass on the song from generation to generation, practically unchanged, giving life to a true singing tradition. They adopt a strategy inspired by what\u2019s called \u201cmatching bias,\u201d until recently considered the prerogative of humans…<\/em><\/p>\n

If animals talk, then are animals like humans? No. But even at this point, the complexity that intensifies in Darwin\u2019s words and according to which the difference is \u201cin degree rather than gender\u201d deserves further reflections. It is not a matter of drawing borders closer to reality or erasing the very idea of \u200b\u200bdifference. \u201cWe must be able, as Elizabeth de Fontaine notes, to dismantle the arrogance of human personality without offending humanity”…<\/em><\/p>\n

The animal issue is not an animal rights issue, or at least it isn\u2019t just that. The issue of the animal is not only concerned with the ethics of the relationship between species, it is first and foremost about a culture\u2019s ability to trace identity without relying on opposing criteria. The animal question concerns the ability of culture to think about complexity. Jacques Derrida\u2019s ideas help in this regard. Derrida devoted the last years of his research to the question of the boundaries between man and animal. Neither So I am the animal, released posthumously in 2006, Derrida invites you to pay attention to the same word \u201canimal\u201d… He says \u201canimal\u201d is the word \u201cdisturbing\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe use in the singular of a general concept like \u2018animal\u2019 is disturbing, as if all non-human living things could be grouped together in the general sense of this \u2018common place\u2019… In this concept the handyman will be closed… All living things that man does not recognize as his brothers, neighbors, or brothers. He adds: \u00abEvery time we say \u2018animal\u2019, every time a philosopher or someone else says in the singular and without adding anything else, \u2018animal\u2019, he thus claims to refer to every living being except man, well, all the time, the subject of this The sentence, that \u201cyes\u201d, that \u201cI\u201d says nonsense \u00bb. Before you start the new game of differences, stop and think: it is better to remain silent than to speak and remove all doubts. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n