# Anthropromorphism



## Corina (Jul 29, 2008)

Okay, I just had a question about anthropromorphism (giving animals intents and almost human emotions) In science this is something we're not supposed to do, but why are we to assume that animals don't have intents or emotions?


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 29, 2008)

Since this is a writers forum and writers do it all the time I would say that this topic is completely valid here.


----------



## BookStop (Jul 29, 2008)

Anyone who has spent time with animals knows they have emotions, sometimes freakishly human-like emotions too. I think scientists are beginning to come around. Didn't people think gorillas were dangerous and stupid at one point, then you have other scientists challanging that perspective by teaching the apes sign language? All of the sudden you have an animal that realistically has a lot in common with humans. 

Pet owners have to deal with thier animals seperationa anxiety whcih doesn't seem all too different from a  human toddlers seperation anxiety. Right now I have aneurotic cat who gets very physically upset if I don't properly love on him at certain times of the day.

Saying animals don't have emotions and purposeful intentions is as ridiculous as saying humans rely soley on instinct. It's a stupid thing.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 29, 2008)

I wholeheartedly agree. No two of my pets were the same. They all had destinct personalities


----------



## Corina (Jul 29, 2008)

I agree with you BookStop! I happen to know for a fact that my cat loves me, he treats me differenly than anyone else in the house. They have personalities. But a scientist would consider it wrong to say that a chipmunk likes to eat nuts because it makes it happy. lol it probably does make chipmunks happy to eat nuts


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 29, 2008)

Animals have personalities and moods. How people who have had any experience of animals can think otherwise escapes me.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 29, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> Animals have personalities and moods. How people who have had any experience of animals can think otherwise escapes me.


 
Blame it on Descartes....

More and more, finding out how our own emotions and mind/brain work, we are seeing that what we have is most likely very analogous to what animals have, if not identical in many respects; perhaps with more layers of complexity and nuance (though the jury is going to be out on that one for a long time). Many types of animals even evince a certain level of "morality", according to some behavioralists.

The problem with anthropomorphism is judging an animal's (or, for that matter, any object, as we tend to do that as well) behavior or actions to causes identical to our own, rather than ranging from similar to utterly alien yet nonetheless comprising what would have to be called an emotional trigger. Animals' emotions and emotional reactions are likely not identical, but there are also most probably _times_ -- especially with animals which are constantly exposed to interaction with humans -- when they are quite similar; enough so to make such at least a rough analogy.


----------



## Nik (Jul 30, 2008)

A relative carelessly accused me of anthropomorphism for attributing character to our cats. Well, you only have to be in the room for two minutes to realise they evince more than reflex responses: We are family.

Exasperated, I flummoxed my critic by saying she *must* accept that our Little Monsters have 'Purrsonalities' (sic).


----------



## Overread (Jul 30, 2008)

I blame the victorians 
We are only just comming out of their way of thinking about the wild world around us - comming down off our high moral and mental horse that we made for ourselves.

However I do see it today as not being a draconian rule, but more a guide to remember that whilst animals might have reactions like our own  that we might have to look a little deeper for the real stimulus or to understand what the reaction from the animal really means.
Saying an animal is nothing more than a creature run by instinct alone and retarded of any choice is folly - just as it is folly to consider that humans have no insticts of our own


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jul 30, 2008)

I guess it comes from the notion that we are separate from other animals - superior. Religious in origin? Of course we have now worked out that there's precious little that separates us really - its a matter of degree rather than kind. JD and OR are right about motives, we should be careful in attributing too much of our own thinking to other animals - but having said that, especially in cases where the animal has spent a lot of time with people, sometimes they can be extraordinarily "human". Many of our own basic motives apply to animals (pleasure, pain, greed, lust, loyalty and the like) and common sense will get you a fair way in cases such as these.


----------

