Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

Well, it had to come. The page you had been hoping to avoid. The page about my pets. Here's the good news about this page: it's actually going to be a philosophical treatment of the relationship of humankind with its pets. Now that's a page worth looking at, right? I know that you were secretly hoping for a philosophical paper. I can offer you the unprecedented combination of philosophy with heartwarming descriptions of the antics of my cats!

First let me introduce our cats. In the picture above the white cat is Scooter. The orange cat is Stan. Scooter is at the time of this writing 2 and 1/2 years old. Stan is 1 and 1/2 years old. Scooter is a laid back cat who takes pretty much everything in stride. He almost never uses his claws unless you really rile him up. Even in normal play he is as gentle as a lamb. The poor guy lets little Stan beat the living daylights out of him! Stan, while he can be brutal when it comes to using his claws, is even more timid than Scooter. If company comes over, he runs for the closet upstairs and hides until well after they are gone. He even runs from us! The people who feed him! When he wants to be he's the nicest most loving cat you could want. Most of the time, he just wants to be left alone.

So much for the description of our particular pets. Now let's move on to pets in general. Oh, let me translate for the philosophical minded: Let us now divert our attention from the particular to the general, from the species to the genus. The catergory of 'cat' falls into a still larger category of 'pet' which holds many species of animals which humans keep for companionship. The category of 'pet' can be contrasted with the category of 'work animal' or 'utility animal'. This distinction is essential as the dog that serves to guide a blind person is not the same as a dog whose purpose is merely that of companionship. The mule which carries my goods to market does not fall into the same category as my exotic bird. That distinction made, let us consider the nature of an animal that is kept as a friend or companion as seen from the human point of view.

Animals kept by people for companionship are treated at times as if they were rational creatures: "Does my baby want his special food? Hmmm? Does he? Does he?" Well, OK, maybe not fully rational, but at least as human as a baby is. I guess that's an equivocation about 'rational creature' and 'human'. When I say that people treat their pets as 'rational' I guess what I really mean is that they treat them as if they were human beings. The two concepts aren't necessarily identical but for my purposes here they will be. But why is it that we treat our pets so much like children? Is it because we are deranged and really think of them as people like ourselves? While that may be so in some cases, it probably isn't the case for everyone. It is more likely because we feel that they are far closer to human than we would have thought if they weren't our constant companions. Their actions take on the aspect of rational thought in our eyes the more time we spend with them. If we own cats then we become convinced that cats are 'really smart'. If we own dogs, we tell cat owners that dogs are by far smarter than cats and very often we are convinced that our dog is the smartest one who ever lived. No matter what kind of animal we own we slowly come to know the 'personality' of our pet as we come to know the personalities of our friends and family. We interpret their actions as being purposeful, even manipulative. We become attuned to their body language and we know when they are hungry or lonely.

In short, we come to treat our animals as people. We love them as much as we love our family. Their companionship is somehow different from the companionship given by a friend or family member. In some ways, it's better: the pet doesn't require us to be good cooks or friendly when we're feeling frustrated. We interact with our pets by touch or by talking but it doesn't matter what we say. They seem to love us no matter what, unconditionally. And yet there's something missing. They don't understand what you're talking about. They can't give you advice or sympathize with your situation. Theirs is an unconditional but non-rational sort of comfort. We can relate to them without concerning ourselves with expressing our thoughts rationally and politely. They are our friends and beyond their physical needs the only thing they need is our presence and positive attention. They make few demands of us. This is a void in our lives which pets fill and which people rarely can. But that little something that is missing, that rational understanding and sympathy is missing from all relationships but with other humans. I wonder if we don't need both sorts of companionship somehow.

As inspiration for my views, please read these passages from Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis:

"...can I ever make you understand how I know, beyond all question, why it is that the Malacandrians don't keep pets and, in general, don't feel about their 'lower animals' as we do about ours? Naturally it is the sort of thing they themselves could never have told me. One just sees why when one sees the three species together. Each of them is to the other both what a man is to us and what an animal is to us. They can talk to each other, they can co-operate, they have the same ethics; to that extent a sorn and a hross meet like two men. But then each finds the other different, funny, attractive as an animal is attractive. Some instinct starved in us, which we try to soothe by treating irrational creatures almost as if they were rational, is really satisfied in Malacandra. They don't need pets." (pg. 156 of my edition)

Also: "...the fact that we had only one kind of hnau: they thought this must have far-reaching effects in the narrowing of sympathies and even of thought. 'Your thought must be at the mercy of your blood,' said the old sorn. 'For you cannot compare it with thought that floats on a different blood.'" (pg. 103 of my edition)

Now, some of this will require explanation to those among my readers who have not had the oportunity to read this fine work of Science Fiction published in 1965. Malacandrians are the inhabitants of the planet to which the main character pays a visit in the novel. The planet is called Malacandra by the inhabitants and Mars by those of us from Earth. There are three species of intelligent creature on the planet and intelligence or sapience is known as being hnau. They can all speak a common language though each has it's own habitat, culture, language, physical form and industrial abilities. Industry is here being used in the general sense of being produtive and should not be allowed to bring to mind an image of bug-eyed monsters working in smoke-belching factories. The hrossa and fishers and hunters and poets. Their songs and poems are truly wonderful. The sorns are intellectuals, scientists and rationalists. The pfifltriggi are miners and builders and artisans of the highest order.

And how does this relate to what I was saying above? Well, I'll tell you later. You can come to your own conclusions for now.