What is 'animality'?

[Valden]

Cultural representations of animality are varied and contradictory. On a simplistic level, a particular animal might be employed to represent some human concept, like a sly wolf. Such examples are, however, detached from the reality of the animal, for they arbitrarily read human ideas into them.

So pushing these aside, Nietzche's concept of animality is perhaps the most convincing. He held that the dinstinction between humans and animals was that humans have memory, whereas animals forget. This means humans can have identities, and on a broader historical scale can establish culture and tradition. Under this paradigm the animal comes to represent the other, the barbarian who would bring down humanity's works.

This leads to my (open) question, what more is there that animals are compared to us (not what we arbitrarily define; a representation), and what are the consequences of this? Can an animal really have any identity beyond that which we ascribe to it, and if not, is this a strength or a weakness? Do we oppress the animal by using it as a representation, or show our futility by failing, as Nietzschean creatures of memory, to ever comprehend a creature of forgetfulness?

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

So pushing these aside, Nietzche's concept of animality is perhaps the most convincing. He held that the dinstinction between humans and animals was that humans have memory, whereas animals forget. This means humans can have identities, and on a broader historical scale can establish culture and tradition. Under this paradigm the animal comes to represent the other, the barbarian who would bring down humanity's works.

what do you mean with animals forget? like they have no memory?
I think experiments like Pavlov's dog disproves that. The memory of animals is not the same as ours, but it still is there and has a function. (whereas ours is more than just practical)

[Sphere]

Homo Neanderthalensis is amused by this thread.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But do go on.

[Garbarsardar]

I somehow suspect the OP never had a dog. Of course dogs are godless killing machines. But then he could get a honeybee!

Yes, Sir, a honeybee. With short term memory. Long term memory. Spatial memory. And it makes honey too.

An aside:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a more interesting question would probably bee (see what I did thear?) if Nietzsche had memory...

[Valden]

I have had a dog for six years, Garbarsardar. So far every reply has missed the point, perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I am not asking for a regurgitation of facts regarding the memory capacity of various animals, I think that was pretty clear. I want to know what other members think animality means on a cultural level and how/why it is represented in that way. I merely raised the Nietzschean concept as a starting point.

[Garbarsardar]

I have had a dog for six years, Garbarsardar. So far every reply has missed the point, perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I am not asking for a regurgitation of facts regarding the memory capacity of various animals, I think that was pretty clear. I want to know what other members think animality means on a cultural level and how/why it is represented in that way. I merely raised the Nietzschean concept as a starting point.

And how exactly you will understand the provenance of the meaning of animality if you do not examine the gaps in out knowledge system that permitted conceptions of animality, as the Nietzschean one, to emerge?

One approach would be to consider that the difference between animal and human state is reflected in the difference between "taming" and "educating". Exercising control requires the first for animals, the second for humans. The tables turned multiple times in this, for example by Rousseau who claimed that an essentially animal state of innocence, has moral preponderance over civilized education, and later by the behaviorists ( who took Pavlov a step too far) who implied that training can be similar between human and non human species. Closer to your starting point I guess you would find Freud, with his proposal that the animal part of us is the one responsible for our basest desires.

[conon394]

So pushing these aside, Nietzche's concept of animality is perhaps the most convincing. He held that the dinstinction between humans and animals was that humans have memory, whereas animals forget. This means humans can have identities, and on a broader historical scale can establish culture and tradition. Under this paradigm the animal comes to represent the other, the barbarian who would bring down humanity's works.

Valden - I dunno all I see is weak attempt to create a rigid distinction between Human and all other animals (Others). His view has been proven to be fantastically wrong since dolphins, orca and chimps for example can all be said to have cultures (by that I mean consistent learned behavior specific to a band/pod and not to a whole species taught and not instictive).

I suppose emphasizing the differences between humans and all other animals vs noticing the similarities does make abusive or wanton destruction of animals more easy or not a 'moral' issue that should be contemplated.

Can an animal really have any identity beyond that which we ascribe to it

Again I can't quite get what you are asking here, obviously any animal with a social structure clearly has an identity apart from any human labeling - why not spend some time on a rural property with say horses, cattle barn cats dogs, house cats, and chickens - it rather interesting to watch the social interaction between all the animals.

Do we oppress the animal by using it as a representation, or show our futility by failing, as Nietzschean creatures of memory, to ever comprehend a creature of forgetfulness?

As I said the goal of the Nietzschean would seem to stark otherness so I suppose it can open the way to callous disregard but it still a false equation. Since you can show lots of examples where people who have a daily repetitive task like a sort simple commute to work experience do it without any memory - that is even humans can fall out of 'consciousness'/memory in the right circumstance

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

You are not really clear on what you are asking... it is evident that animals can have identities but it is on the basis on evolutionary requirements.and Also you can never clearly separate man form animals. Both show traits that should belong on the opposite sides.

[Blau&Gruen]

Do we oppress the animal by using it as a representation, or show our futility by failing ...

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

^ oh yes i read about that a few days ago in the newspaper it makes so sad