Reviews for What Philosophy Can Tell You about Your Cat

The average rating for What Philosophy Can Tell You about Your Cat based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-12-26 00:00:00 justin demonceau This book is similar to those in the Philosophy and Popular Culture series, but is not itself a book in that series. It is an anthology centered around a single theme. In this case it is cats. It has four sections. They cover five areas of philosophical interests - friendship, beauty and ethics, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics. The following are some comments I have made on pieces of text that I made notes on. Page numbers are in brackets [] from the Open Court paperback edition of 2008. Page numbers preceded by "@" are were I thought of a comment, but not directly linked to a specific piece of text. [8-9] "In effect, animals either don't know or have much less of a sense of what they stand to lose by dying than your typical human being has." Gary Steiner wrote this sentence as an example of why most people morally favor human beings over animals. While there might be other reasons to favor human beings over animals, when human beings are dead, they are as dead as animals. Seeing how there is no more person there. [9] He claims that one would argue to save a child over an animal. I would claim that we would not argue. This is because we are more guided in moral situations like this by our feelings. We are geared by evolution to favor a child over an animal, and argument would be limited if used at all. These feelings will not be as strong in some as in others. But, most people would be pulled by their feelings. Arguments can have their place in some moral decisions, but nothing would be done without the accompanying feelings. [@21] I don't buy John Carvalho's use of philosophical phenomenological descriptions of cats or anything else he would apply it to. [39] A footnote states that Mark Berkoff doesn't see using anthropomorphisms as a bad thing in animal studies; it is similar to Daniel C. Dennett's intentional stance, where he uses intentional terms to understand behavior, even of inanimate machines. We don't know the intentional status of animal minds, but the presume status can still help to explain their behavior. [@41] I am in basic agreement with Randall E. Auxier's stance toward his cats. This is they are friends. I do not have a paternalistic relationship with my cats; I have always consider them friends. [53] "Cats . . . all seem to agree that thunder is to big deal with . . . it frightens [them]." A cat that I once had was Thunder (ended up being an apropos name) did not even budge an inch for rumbling thunder, and a crack my have elicited I quick unconcern look and immediately resume his previous stance. I have even seen him approach the windows during severe thunderstorms. This was a cat that was afraid of us for the first two months that we had him, and it was six months before he allowed us to pet him. [102] "These reasons [for acts feeling pain] place the burden of proof on those that claim that cats don't feel pain." Actually the burden of proof falls onto the person who claims the existence of something (i.e. that cats feel pain). But, if pain in cats needs proof, so does pain in human beings. But, we actually have ample proof for both. [108] "According to Kant and Rawls what makes humans matter is that they are rational, the reason cats don't matter is that they are not rational." What about infants and babies? Or those with dementia? Or in a coma? Or the severely intellectually handicapped? Plus, all of us are not rational all the time. Do these human beings lose moral consideration because they are not currently rational. Maybe they mean the potential. But, most cases of dementia are irreversible, so there is no longer any potential for rationality. And the severely intellectually handicapped will never gain rationality. We take on a duty of care for those human beings not capable of rational thought. But, there are other reasons that we take on a duty of care. With animals if we become involved in their lives in anyway, we take on a duty of care. Some shirk that duty, but ethically they should not. This is my view of this situation. [123] ". . . I must warn you that there won't necessarily be an answer. But that's exactly what makes it philosophical rather than a scientific question." I believe this is correct. Philosophy deals in possibilities and is an exploration of them. Science consist of specific questions (hypotheses) with exact answers (experimental results). True science always comes with a degree of uncertainty, but does not reach the level that it has in philosophy. [127] "Others . . . believe that thought is produced by brain activity that bears no resemblance to language." This my view.† For the rest of the book my notes are muddled (I was dealing with neck surgery and on opiates when I read the book), so I cannot make further comments on the text. Like most anthologies this one was a mixed bag, but except for in this book it is disagreements with some of the philosophers that is the culprit. This is based either on their philosophical approaches (I agree mostly with those of an analytic approach) or the specific arguments they present for their take on an issue. If you like cats and you like philosophy, I think you should give this book a try. If you only like one or the other, I would think a cat lover would do better than one interest in philosophy, but even then the potential reader might still gain some insights, which is one of the things philosophy is all about'exploration of the concepts and ideas involved with a particular subject. † See my blog post on why I take the same stance -

Review # 2 was written on 2014-04-03 00:00:00 Mark Mcdaniel It demonstrated to me that philosophy can't tell me anything, it just asks me questions that don't seem to have answers. The book would have been better titled "What Philosophy Can Ask You About Your Cat." Did I learn anything? Not about cats. It reminds me of reading "What is it like to be a bat?" which didn't seem to me to answer the question.