The nature of animals is a concept that has been discussed and debated across a wide variety of topics in many different fields. The idea of animals’ logic and rational thought processes is something that has always been a fair fight for both sides. The ability for an animal to obtain and maintain a thought has been questioned as to whether it is just instinct or an actual intellectual process. It will be demonstrated how philosophers argue that animals are both capable and incapable of upholding a given thought and if, why or why not they choose to act on it.
LINGUISTIC ABILITY
The ability to communicate on a verbal or action-based level is a large part of the thought process. In order to understand, communicate and receive thoughts one …show more content…
He defines thought as a lively idea and reason as a connection between instinct and a conclusion. His definitions, that which holds up the base of his argument, are challenged, they are weak and not agreed upon by enough people to be substantial. Searle argues that thought is undefinable as any form of vivid image but rather that which must be proposed, entertained and be a somewhat decent representation of the truth. (Searle, 1994) Furthermore in the Linguistic Ability section, Hauser argues against Descartes Language Test Argument. He claims the best argument for the lack of occurrent thoughts present in animals is that they are unable to understand or interpret the infinite number of conclusions or expressions that may come from a thought; it is not that inability to produce and entertain a thought. (Hauser, 2002) Finally, Davidson demonstrates the Argument for Holism, that which is the idea that in order for animals to believe in one thing they must believe in an endless possibility of other things. The critique presented for the Holism argument says that Davidson is implying it is impossible even for humans to believe one thing because we do not agree on an exact number or body of beliefs as every other human. (Fodor and Lepore, …show more content…
The inability to perform can lead to the belief that if they cannot express it, it must be difficult for them to experience them. Concurrently, as expressed in the demonstrations of Bermudez, it would also be difficult for animals to think thoughts considering they do not have any natural language to think in. Searle presents the theory that should the notion that they cannot think be true, animals act only out of instinct to satisfy needs and desires as opposed to out of commitment, morals or logic. As well, Bennett presents the idea that because animals are unable to entertain thoughts, it implies anything not pertaining to the matters of their own particular situation (to hunt, eat, sleep etc) would be out of the questing, advancing the notion that instincts are the only evident, relative concerns of animals. This theory was similarly presented by Descartes in the Action Test Argument, demonstrating that animals act by accordance of general rules, not because of reason, as animals show little evidence of a direct relation between their thoughts and a purposeful
LINGUISTIC ABILITY
The ability to communicate on a verbal or action-based level is a large part of the thought process. In order to understand, communicate and receive thoughts one …show more content…
He defines thought as a lively idea and reason as a connection between instinct and a conclusion. His definitions, that which holds up the base of his argument, are challenged, they are weak and not agreed upon by enough people to be substantial. Searle argues that thought is undefinable as any form of vivid image but rather that which must be proposed, entertained and be a somewhat decent representation of the truth. (Searle, 1994) Furthermore in the Linguistic Ability section, Hauser argues against Descartes Language Test Argument. He claims the best argument for the lack of occurrent thoughts present in animals is that they are unable to understand or interpret the infinite number of conclusions or expressions that may come from a thought; it is not that inability to produce and entertain a thought. (Hauser, 2002) Finally, Davidson demonstrates the Argument for Holism, that which is the idea that in order for animals to believe in one thing they must believe in an endless possibility of other things. The critique presented for the Holism argument says that Davidson is implying it is impossible even for humans to believe one thing because we do not agree on an exact number or body of beliefs as every other human. (Fodor and Lepore, …show more content…
The inability to perform can lead to the belief that if they cannot express it, it must be difficult for them to experience them. Concurrently, as expressed in the demonstrations of Bermudez, it would also be difficult for animals to think thoughts considering they do not have any natural language to think in. Searle presents the theory that should the notion that they cannot think be true, animals act only out of instinct to satisfy needs and desires as opposed to out of commitment, morals or logic. As well, Bennett presents the idea that because animals are unable to entertain thoughts, it implies anything not pertaining to the matters of their own particular situation (to hunt, eat, sleep etc) would be out of the questing, advancing the notion that instincts are the only evident, relative concerns of animals. This theory was similarly presented by Descartes in the Action Test Argument, demonstrating that animals act by accordance of general rules, not because of reason, as animals show little evidence of a direct relation between their thoughts and a purposeful