Clashes in Wordviews. I was just gonna write about them, then I came across this very vivid example:

Here we see a good example of clashing worldviews. If I add our view, we’d even have three differing positions. However the chauvisim of the view pertaining to the cartesian-style „de-soulification“ of nonhumans, quoted, is remarkably hegemonial in its unfounded claim … .

Needless to say, I guess, that in regards to Nonhumans, since humanity so far doesn’t get its act together, people can just have the most absurdest theories they distribute about „how“ animals would be, what they tought and did not think, that they wouldn’t think at all …

If assumtions are goodwilling and considerate towards Nonhumans, fine, but if they drivel with destructiveness towards our Withworld, then we got a serious ethical problem.

Biological arguments, yes, they highlight physiological aspects. But like in Human Rights you don’t require physiology to agree > from the philosophical angle and on basis of common sense, that humans have that what we understand as dignity: Same is valid for Nonhuman uniqueness.

Basing the notion of rights on the biological factuality doesn’t cover the concepts of anything pertaining to > „what do we conceive as autonomy/dignity/thought/language…“ those things need to actually really urgently need to be put in order, need to be rethought, reconsidered, corrected > philosophically.

The person with the cartesian de-soulification thing going on in the first place denies Nonhumans their (unique) dignity, this act is, as it is usually done today, covered up with „misinformed“ physiological claims, that are still basing on conceptions that formed big parts of human hegemony …..


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert