The human mirror: a critique of the philosophical discourse on animals from the position of multispecies semiotics
Date
2018-10-26
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Töös lahatakse teatavat laialt levinud filosoofilist või teoreetilist arusaama suhetest inimeste ja loomade vahel. See „tavamõistuslik“ arusaam inimeste-loomade suhetest koosneb kuuest tahust, mis on kokku võetud allpool. Koos moodustavad need narratiivi, millel on problemaatilisi tagajärgi elurikkuse, omailmade ja inimeseksolemise mõistmisel. Seda sellepärast, et need kuus tahku näitavad, et selle tavamõistusliku diskursuse rolliks on teha teistest loomadest madalamat järku ja seega tähtsusetud olendid, mistõttu ei pöörata neile piisavat tähelepanu teatavaid teemasid, küsimusi ja mõisteid analüüsides, mida peetakse ainuomaselt inimlikeks. Tagajärjeks on antropotsentristlik usk inimese erandlikku loomusse, mille järgi inimesed oleksid justkui loodusest lahutatud ja elaksid eraldises kultuuri- või keelevallas. Töös ollakse seisukohal, et rohkem tähelepanu teistele loomadele võib pakkuda huvitavaid tulemusi filosoofiliste küsimuste arutamisel.
Nimetatud kuus tahku, mis moodustavad „filosoofilise tavamõistuse“ on järgmised:
1. Inimeste ainulaadne loomus tuletatakse ainult inimest ennast uurides;
2. Loomade endi olulisimaks tunnuseks on, et neil puudub midagi ainuliselt inimomast;
3. Kui inimesi võrreldakse loomadega, kirjeldatakse inimesi nende suhtes ainulaadsetena, mitte pelgalt erinevatena;
4. Eristus inimeste ja loomade vahel on vaimne või taandatav vaimsele;
5. Loomi kirjeldatakse ühe suure ja ühtlase kategooriana, millesse kuuluvad kõik loomad tervikuna;
6. Tõeline inimeseksolemine saavutatakse siis, kui inimeses endas maha suruda loomalikkus.
Töös kasutatakse posthumanistlikke arusaamu eelneva kriitiliseks analüüsiks. Posthumanistlik diskursus keskendub neile paljudele suhetele, mis inimestel on mitteinimestega, olgu need elusad või mitte. Olulisemad kriitilised kontseptsioonid töös on korrelatsionism ja antropoloogiline masin. Esimene neist kirjeldab olukorda filosoofias, mille järgi on meil võimalik vaid juurdepääs suhtele (korrelatsioonile) mõtlemise ja olemise vahel, kuid mitte kummalegi poolele eraldi. Korrelatsionistlik mõte on asümmeetriline, kuna inimese poolt peetakse tähendusloomes peamiseks. Antropoloogilise masina mõiste kirjeldab arusaama, mille järgi inimeste ja loomade erinevus ei ole liigipiiril, vaid pannakse määratlema inimest ennast. Niisugune olukord muudaks siis justkui oluliseks loomaliku poole mahasurumise inimeses. Töö katsub ühtlasi laiendada ja rakendada antropoloogia „ontoloogilist pööret“ teiste loomade omailmadele, võttes justkui tagasivaate inimmõtlemisele läbi teiste loomade pilgu, mille tulemiks oleks omamoodi „filosoofia teiste loomade pilgu läbi“.
The thesis explicates a certain common philosophical or theoretical understanding of the relations between humans and nonhuman animals, which is widespread. This “common-sense” approach to animal-human relations comprises six aspects, summarised below. Together, they present a narrative which has a detrimental effect on understanding biological diversity, the plenitude of umwelts, and the place of humans in the world. This for the reason that these six aspects show that the primary purpose of this common-sense narrative is to relegate to a lower or more irrelevant position nonhuman animals, thereby expelling understanding of them from a sphere of certain conceptions, topics and beliefs that are thought to be uniquely human. It forms a pattern of thinking amounting to an anthropocentric belief in human exceptionalism, in which human beings are as if excluded from the natural world and instead inhabiting a separate “realm”, be it conceived as culture, language, symbolic thought, etc. The thesis proposes that philosophically interesting results can be achieved by paying more attention to nonhumans. The six aspects of this philosophical “common-sense” are as follows: 1. The uniqueness of human nature can be determined by studying humans alone; 2. The most important characteristic of animals is that they lack something human; 3. When humans are compared to animals, humans are described as unique, rather than merely different; 4. The distinction between humans and animals is mental, or reducible to the mental; 5. Animals are discussed as one indistinct, undifferentiated category; 6. Humans reach their true nature only when they suppress the animal within themselves. The thesis makes use of posthumanist approaches for the express purpose of critiquing the above discourse. Posthumanist discourse focuses on the myriad relations that humans have with nonhumans, living and non-living. The most relevant critical conceptions that the thesis applies are correlationism and the anthropological machine. The former describes the situation in philosophy according to which it can have access to a correlation between thinking and being, and not to either part alone. Correlationist thinking is also asymmetrical, since it considers the human side as the primary source of meaning-making. The concept of the anthropological machine describes the discourse according to which the human-animal distinction is not placed on a species-line, but rather as constitutive of humans themselves. This situation is then thought of as necessitating the suppression of the animal side within humans themselves. The thesis also proposes to extend and apply anthropology’s ontological turn to nonhuman umwelts, taking a circuitous look back on human thinking through the eyes of nonhumans, amounting to a “philosophy through the eyes of nonhuman animals”.
The thesis explicates a certain common philosophical or theoretical understanding of the relations between humans and nonhuman animals, which is widespread. This “common-sense” approach to animal-human relations comprises six aspects, summarised below. Together, they present a narrative which has a detrimental effect on understanding biological diversity, the plenitude of umwelts, and the place of humans in the world. This for the reason that these six aspects show that the primary purpose of this common-sense narrative is to relegate to a lower or more irrelevant position nonhuman animals, thereby expelling understanding of them from a sphere of certain conceptions, topics and beliefs that are thought to be uniquely human. It forms a pattern of thinking amounting to an anthropocentric belief in human exceptionalism, in which human beings are as if excluded from the natural world and instead inhabiting a separate “realm”, be it conceived as culture, language, symbolic thought, etc. The thesis proposes that philosophically interesting results can be achieved by paying more attention to nonhumans. The six aspects of this philosophical “common-sense” are as follows: 1. The uniqueness of human nature can be determined by studying humans alone; 2. The most important characteristic of animals is that they lack something human; 3. When humans are compared to animals, humans are described as unique, rather than merely different; 4. The distinction between humans and animals is mental, or reducible to the mental; 5. Animals are discussed as one indistinct, undifferentiated category; 6. Humans reach their true nature only when they suppress the animal within themselves. The thesis makes use of posthumanist approaches for the express purpose of critiquing the above discourse. Posthumanist discourse focuses on the myriad relations that humans have with nonhumans, living and non-living. The most relevant critical conceptions that the thesis applies are correlationism and the anthropological machine. The former describes the situation in philosophy according to which it can have access to a correlation between thinking and being, and not to either part alone. Correlationist thinking is also asymmetrical, since it considers the human side as the primary source of meaning-making. The concept of the anthropological machine describes the discourse according to which the human-animal distinction is not placed on a species-line, but rather as constitutive of humans themselves. This situation is then thought of as necessitating the suppression of the animal side within humans themselves. The thesis also proposes to extend and apply anthropology’s ontological turn to nonhuman umwelts, taking a circuitous look back on human thinking through the eyes of nonhumans, amounting to a “philosophy through the eyes of nonhuman animals”.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone
Keywords
human-animal relationship, philosophical aspects, discourse analysis, posthumanism, zoosemiotics