posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:57 PM
I believe it to be completely possible not to mention highly probable that MOST people have at some point lived life as an animal. Think about it;
what is really the difference between humans and animals?
Most people make the distinction based on the speciest arguement that humans are superior or, and this one is my personal favorite, that humans have
souls while animals do not.
Arguement 1: Humans are superior to animals and are therefore not animals themselves.
Counterarguement 1: Humans are not superior they are simply different. Humans lack many of the features present in other animals that increase
survivability (claws, fangs, speed, night vision, camoflauge). The feature that humans possess that compensates for this is the ability to combine
higher thinking skills with the ability to cooperate to solve a problem. Several studies have been done testing capuchin monkeys for the features.
While the monkeys do have higher thinking skills they failed in every instance to cooperate with one another to complete a task in which cooperation
was necessary for completion. This adaptation alone sets humans on the same pedestal as animals therefore humans are animals.
Argument 2: Humans are not animals because humans have souls while animals do not.
Counterargument 2: Define "soul". For thousands of years philosophers have struggled with this task. Assuming that the soul is what makes an
individual an individual, the Taoists would say that there is no such thing as a soul. I once heard the soul likened to a drop of water. Once the
vessel for the soul ceases to be, what is left to keep that drop of water from rejoining the waters around it? Traditional Japanese philosophy would
say that the soul has many forms or selves depending on who is percieving it. Many argue that the notion of an everlasting soul is indicative of a
strong sense of self-preservation, a delusional method of "cheating death". Still, others believe that the soul is NOT what makes an individual
unique. Many fundamentalist Christian denomonations claim that the soul is not the personality but an indistinct eternal form that was created by
This counterargument, while proving a point, does little other than diverting the issue. I believe that it is certainly an argument to consider but I
do not find it to be the most effective in refuting the claim that humans have souls while animals do not.
Counterargument 3: It can not be proven that humans have souls, that animals do not have souls, or that souls exist.
Rebuttle to Counterargument 3: Just because you can't prove something does not mean that it isn't true. (The absence of evidence does not
constitute the evidence of absence.)
Response: Counterargument 3 made no claim that because you can't prove the existance of the soul the soul doesn't exist. Counterargument 3 makes
the distinction between belief and knowledge. The Theory of Justified True Belief (JTB for short) states that in order to know something one must
have the following:
Justification- A logical reason for believing something.
Truth- The subject in question must be true. To put it more colloquially, the moon is in fact NOT made of blue cheese; the belief that it is is not
Belief- the acceptance of a subject.
Without justification, truth, and belief, one can not truly know something; one can only hold a belief.