Customer Reviews

Animal Consciousness (Frontiers of Philosophy)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I found this book very interesting and informative, and it is written in an entertaining and accessible style. The Radners have done a really good job of making clear some of the more important issues involved in understanding how the meaning of "consciousness" can differ across species.

The Radners are both professors of philosophy. They state in the Introduction to this 1989 book, "The time is long overdue for abandoning the anthropocentric approach to philosophy ... This book is about animals. We make no excuse that they are being studied in order to learn more aboput human nature. The zoocentric approach to philosophy is very fruitful. Certain issues in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, even history of philosophy, take on new light when animals are given center stage."

They elaborate, "We advocate a reexamination of what usually passes for the Cartesian concept of consciousness. We argue that there is in Descartes a distinction between two types of consciousness, reflective and nonreflective. This distinction averts certain notorious problems that critics and scholars have foisted on Descartes and on the notion of consciousness in general. From from fostering the denial of consciousness to animals, the distinction makes it easier to talk about animals as having conscious experiences and easier to see how one can learn about them."

They conclude on the note, "Once we grant animals moral status, we must be prepared to take them seriously. Taking animals seriously means considering them as individuals in their own right. It means recognizing them as being with interests and capacities for satisfaction, some of which are species-specific. In order to appreciate the full range of animal experience, we must be prepared to step beyond the simple dichotomy of human versus nonhuman. Other animals deserve the same careful scrutiny that we have hitherto lavished on our own species."

Definitly a work if you like philosophical logic. It exhibits overkill in the area of research, but does not provide clear cut answers. It uses the A is B, A is not B, etc. type of research. Many sources are presented, however it is not reader written. I still do not know if animals have a consciousness or if I am just stupid.