1 pointThis is so very fascinating, Drakmanka... I wish I'd have a similar starting point for finding out about myself. Have you actually considered that what you remember could come from more than one life, I wonder?
0 pointsHello Amber, it's me again! Hope you don't mind, I genuinely enjoy debating with you, even though neither of us are going to change our stances anytime soon, but it's always interesting to see how someone else thinks on matters of philosophical theory! So here I am! I don't really participate in Therian discussions, as I'm not a Therian, and I think very... differently... than most Therians, so I figure it would be a waste of my time to try to just watch these days without participating. So I didn't see the original conversation you mentioned, so I'll just be talking from my own observations. I personally think that shifting is a human only phenomena, solely because we don't have any evidence that non-human animals have the same sense of self-awareness that humans do. I would actually be most likely to accept dolphins, and maybe whales, close to that subject as they are intelligent, and have complex forms of communication and language. But I do believe a sense of self-awareness, and language are the cornerstones of sapience. Yes, non-human animals are sentient, but I don't believe they are sapient, and as such a divergent sense of identity just doesn't seem logical, nor realistic, in my opinion. If it did show up, it would mean a sense of complex understanding of self versus others, individual identification, as well as the ability to communicate the difference. Perhaps our differences in opinions result from the different beliefs we have towards language, and communication. A species that cannot communicate complex thoughts to others just isn't self-aware to me. One needs complex language to be able to think to oneself. Think of feral children, if they aren't found young enough, then they'll never be able to assimilate back into society because their brain can't comprehend the complex languages of humans and how to communicate. So yes, thinking without language would be fast, it wouldn't be very specific, and wouldn't allow for abstract thought, which is a sign of higher awareness, and sapience itself. A good example would be death. Animals don't understand death like a species that utilizes language would. They avoid death because biology tells them to. Perhaps, (A very hard perhaps) individual examples of animals might show signs of understanding far different than their average counterparts, but that hasn't been proven. Humans (and by extension any other truly sapient species should we come across them in the future) can think about the abstractions of death, about the moral and philosophical quandaries of death. Yes animals have been shown to mourn, but the communication needed for that to become self thought isn't there. That isn't to say that animals are inferior to humans, because that would imply an outside, objective scale of worth towards humans, which as far as we know just doesn't exist. Humans are not better by nature of being humans, but by the fact of our sapience, that does make us more advanced socially. I think romanticizing animals in harmony with the environment is a bit of a fallacy, because any species will take full advantage of the environment it finds itself in, to the point of killing all other species in their ecological niche, and destroying the local biome. And this isn't forced by humans, the only reason isolated biomes have a sort of harmony, is that multiple species are predating upon each other. It's less harmony, and more just structured destruction. (a paradox yes, but I find those fun) Also, I find it really intriguing about environmental protections that most world powers are actually the best at it, considering that people like to claim first world countries are the worst. It's countries like India, and China, places people like to act like are the best at it, that are the major pollution and environmental destruction centers. Modern culture is actually very concerned with environmental protection, as well as animal conservation, with a few outliers that are just more noticed. Look at how people react to animal abuse, very violently in most cases. Yes, most people in modern countries aren't going to give up their comforts on a crusade for the environment. Yes, that's good and all, but as far as people are sure of, they only get one life, and wanting to live it comfortably is, in my opinion, understandable and quite acceptable. I, personally, think that intelligence is worth its prices. We are coming up with beautiful tech to save the environment. We are beating the capricious cruelty of biology with science, medicine, and social awareness. Children, both human and animal, can live lives happily when without intelligence to create these solutions, would have died either in the womb, or as a child. We can raise a child with disabilities, again both human and animal, that animals would have left for dead, with love and make their lives happier, and less painful. We save animals that we find and give them lives of peace and love with no real expectations except to be loved in return. Most people will save their pets over people (human and animal) who aren't a part of their family. Most humans consider their pets their family, and will spend a lot of money making sure they are happy and loved. Scientists and veterinarians spend their time, energy, and money, coming up with ways to save animals, to care for them when no one else will, which is something that barely any animal would be willing to do in the wild. Almost all cross species friendships are not in the wild, and occur only because humans give these animals lives where they can seek happiness, not constant survival. Whereas animals will just abandon the sick if they aren't getting better. Weak and sickly babies will either be abandoned, or killed to make room for healthy children. Animals that don't fit the mold die just as much from their own species as other species. Look at swans, they will drown the babies of other water fowl to make sure their children have a better chance of survival. Animals aren't perfect, and are in fact, much more cruel than humans by and large. Yes, humans can be evil, and it does mean more because it's a choice, but evil humans are not as common as the cold brutality of animal nature. The rampant romanticization of animals is, to me, naive, considering the kind of acceptance that Otherkin (As a whole) claim they want to receive from humans would never be given by animals. If an animal were to experience shifts like that of Otherkin, then they would be shunned, and probably die, or go insane if they were truly aware. Humans are in a lot more harmony with animals than people give them credit for. Again, I like discussing this kind of thing with you Amber, because you have such a different frame of mind than I do, and it's always intriguing to me.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00