Draft 11.08.2023

Relating to Nonhumans on a subjective level would mean for instance:

In typical child psychology and childhood sociological terms, kids to relate positively to Nonhuman embodied characters in picture books with toys, etc.

> see for a discussion about this phenomenon also >The plush animal toy „phenomenon“ (antibiologistic perspectivities in animal sociology) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QQLHwYDJGE > https://tierrechtsethik.de/qualities-of-zoomorph-expressions-1/

Society conveys even that children can or should or might hold positive, interested sentiments as an affirmative reaction to these embodiments.

If adults would in stark contrast give children for instance a book or books where a character such as Snoopy would be – like the real Beagles he represents – figuratiely humiliated, tortured and murdered, by an imagined figurative humanoid society (the peanuts for instance themselves) I wonder how fast you would see that indeed a subjective level matters of the plane of social bonding between animality and humans from the viewpoint of the children.

To go a bit further, this does not only issultrate that the subjective and thus social interaction level is essentual here … but also in this context we could say again that the drawing of analogies is a legitimate form of relating to each other.

I recently added a thought to the issue of being differentiated in terms of analogies here > https://tierrechtsethik.de/draft-the-analogy-comparison-and-relation/



Schreibe einen Kommentar

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