Animals, Individuality, and the soul

[Tcurry]

So I have a dog that I love very much. There are times where I think about her and how she and I are different. I know that the Thomist philosophical tradition (of which I have a particular fondness for) says the rational soul we have in addition to the sensitive and vegetative faculties that are common to man and animal sets us apart. In my reading, the faculties of the rational soul are the will, intellect, our self awareness or consciousness, and individuality. However, it seems that animals have this sense of individuality too so is individuality a biological construct or is the self awareness and personal identity of the human person at a higher level of being because of our rational soul? Thanks in advance to those who answer.

 

[Gorgias]

However, it seems that animals have this sense of individuality too

So, how would you define that “sense of individuality”, then? Maybe that’s where the disconnect is – there’s a difference of definition of what it means…?

 

[Tcurry]

Perhaps the way we define individuality, the “I” of ourselves.

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps the way we define individuality, the “I” of ourselves.

Ok. So, then… how would you assert that your dog knows that he is an individual?

 

[Tcurry]

My dog perceives her surroundings and when we call her name (Teddy) she responds. Now I know animals are sentient creatures and thus they are conscious beings but I know their consciousness is on a level lower than ours for they simply perceive, they can’t reflect internally (if they could, we’d probably be able to see that being revealed just like humans). Could it be that their individuality is different from ours?

 

[Neithan]

Could it be that their individuality is different from ours?

Sure, as in the dog is aware that it is not the things around it. That is not an individual identity though, since it doesn’t have reflective reasoning.

 

[Vico]

So I have a dog that I love very much. There are times where I think about her and how she and I are different. I know that the Thomist philosophical tradition (of which I have a particular fondness for) says the rational soul we have in addition to the sensitive and vegetative faculties that are common to man and animal sets us apart. In my reading, the faculties of the rational soul are the will, intellect, our self awareness or consciousness, and individuality. However, it seems that animals have this sense of individuality too so is individuality a biological construct or is the self awareness and personal identity of the human person at a higher level of being because of our rational soul? Thanks in advance to those who answer.

The rational soul provides faculties of intellect (or mind, or understanding) and will. The conscience is an act of the faculty of intellect as reason.

“There exists, therefore, an operation of the soul which so far exceeds the corporeal nature that it is not even performed by any corporeal organ; and such is the operation of the ‘rational soul.’” (Summa Theologiae Q. 78, Art. 1)

 

[Gorgias]

My dog perceives her surroundings

OK… but that isn’t an indication of a recognition of self, is it?

when we call her name (Teddy) she responds

Sure, but does that learned response necessarily mean that she knows that she is Teddy, or could it just mean that she knows that you’re looking to get her attention?

they can’t reflect internally (if they could, we’d probably be able to see that being revealed just like humans). Could it be that their individuality is different from ours?

Isn’t that “internal reflection” what we mean by an awareness of personal identity? And, if what they have is different than that, then shouldn’t we call it by a different name, rather than assume that it’s the same thing that we have?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Animals do not have rational souls with an intellect and free will ergo they cannot go to heaven, purgatory or hell. A dog cannot choose to love God nor can a dog disobey God by sin. It has its own instincts which it follows.

 

[Tcurry]

I think I’m starting to get the picture here. Their consciousness and individuality is not the level ours is because of our soul. Thanks for the help!

 

[Inquiry]

Some animals do recognize themselves. Look up mirror tests to see the evidence. It is still a long way from that to true sapience.

 

[Gorgias]

Some animals do recognize themselves.

Do they recognize the mirror image as self, though, is the question?

 

[Inquiry]

That’s a complicated question. They definitely recognize the images as reflections of their bodies, that’s what the test is all about. They definitely recognize the difference between themselves and another animal of the same species. I would put being able to consider, ponder, and rationalize their own existence as significantly further up the sapience ladder. To my knowledge no animal can reach those rungs.

 

[Gorgias]

They definitely recognize the images as reflections of their bodies, that’s what the test is all about.

Merely as an animal body? (I’m thinking of wild turkeys, who attack their reflections in windows and such.)

Or, perhaps, merely as an animal body? (That is, not distinguishing between distinct creatures.)

Or, perhaps, merely as a reflection of their body? (That is, we’re still not into a recognition of self qua self, but merely, the body itself.)

If we pass all these tests, we still have to ask whether this implies a “cogito ergo sum” recognition of oneself as a being. That’s really what we’re trying to get at here, isn’t it?

But I agree with you… this last test – what you call “rationalize their own existence” – is what’s in play, and it’s not been demonstrated to be present in any other species.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

They definitely recognize the images as reflections of their bodies, that’s what the test is all about.

Merely as an animal body? (I’m thinking of wild turkeys, who attack their reflections in windows and such.)

Wild turkeys don’t pass the mirror test. The animals that I remember do are: chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, dolphins, elephants, and magpies. It could be a longer list (I’ve seen a really convincing video of a house cat that seemed to pass) but a lot of animals aren’t visual enough to pay attention to a mirror.

The way the test works is that the animals are marked in a way that can be seen in a mirror, but not without it. For example, chimpanzees are marked on the forehead. The animals are then exposed to the mirror. If they consistently try to remove the mark once they see the reflection it is said that they pass.

It’s enough to show that they recognize what they are seeing as somehow their body. It might imply an idea of cleanliness or appearance as a concept rather than an instinct. It doesn’t go much further than that.

But I agree with you… this last test – what you call “rationalize their own existence” – is what’s in play, and it’s not been demonstrated to be present in any other species.

Exactly.

 

[Wesrock]

Thomists don’t deny that animals are conscious. It’s intellection, that we take on an intelligible manner the forms of the things we know, that sets us apart from other animals. It’s the grasping of a universal concept from sense impressions of particulars.