| 1. |
- Libell, Monica, et al.
(author)
-
A Mirror of Myself? Monist and Dualist views of Animals
- 2005
-
In: Animal Bioethics. Principles and Teaching methods. - 9076998582
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Mankind has always used animals as the Other, to compare himself with them. Animals have provided the mirror in which mankind has defined himself . In their perceived similarities and dissimilarities with humans, he has distinguished the boundaries which separates him from the Other. Since antiquity, this relationship has been lively debated between at least two groups of interpreters. The "dualists" have contended that humans are unique and decidedly different from animals, whereas "monists" have argued that we are essentially the same, metaphysically and/or physiologically. Along with this ambiguous perception of animals, discussions concerning our moral relationship have followed. Dualists have often more or less dismissed human obligations to animals. Monists, on the other hand, have usually stressed our responsibilities. During the 19th century, the boundaries between these groups grew increasingly blurred as physiological evidence pointed to evolutionary similarities, indeed kinship. Monists_for instance, natural scientists_convinced about the evolutionary kinship between humans and animals, could emphasize a dualist ethical outlook. Similarly, dualists who based their beliefs on anthropocentric Christian thinking, nevertheless found themselves at times showing an unusual concern for animals due to civilizational or Christian demands. Only believers in a metaphysical unity, seem to have retained a monist worldview and ethics. Today, the issue still creates discussion. How similar are we to animals and how should these similarities inform our ethical conduct toward them?
|
|
| 2. |
- Libell, Monica, et al.
(author)
-
“Blond flowing hair”, “tumid lips,” “rigid posture”, and “choleric temperament” : Universal aspirations and racial asymmetries in Linnaeus' definition of Homo sapiens
- 2016
-
In: Hellenes and Barbarians : Asymmetrical Concepts in European Discourse - Asymmetrical Concepts in European Discourse. - 9781800736795 - 9781800736801 ; , s. 56-84
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The starting point of my analysis will be Reinhard Koselleck’s hypothesis of historical asymmetrical counterconcepts. His belief in a conceptual and ideological global dualism (Hellene/Barbarian, Christian/Heathen, Superman/Subhuman), in which a collective Self is contrasted to a generic Other of negation, will be tested on Linnaeus’ 18th-century classifications of human varieties (races). Though proposed as a neutral scientific map of human ethnic groups, the conceptual asymmetries were nestled within Linnaeus quadripartite and occasionally quinquepartite division of the world. The asymmetric character of these taxonomies, complicating Koselleck's essentially dichotomous vision of conceptual asymmetry, will be explored through their connotations of inclusion and exclusion, immateriality/invisibility vs materiality/visibility, civilization, authenticity/originality/innocence and, 'degeneration'. The binary scheme of asymmetrical concepts is further qualified by Linnaeus' empirical and morphological findings that thwart easy clear-cut distinctions, as well as by his reliance on ancient Humoralism with its stress on symmetry, equality and balance of four nodes (rather than two), and, finally, Linnaeus' self-referential characterization of the human species (nosce te ipsum - know thyself) which does not preclude, however, a subtle ambivalence regarding European cultural sophistication.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Libell, Monica
(author)
-
Morality Beyond Humanity : Schopenhauer, Grysanowski, and Schweitzer on Animal Ethics
- 2001
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The study examines the character and development of the animal ethical ideas of three German thinkers: Arthur Schopenhauer, Ernst Grysanowski, and Albert Schweitzer. By situating them in their cultural and intellectual context, the study explores the differing meanings of their ethical views of animals and seeks to answer the question of how their ideas can be explained historically. It is argued that from the beginning of the 19th century through the 1880s, the animal ethical discourse received heightened attention, a development that was largely due to two parallel bodies of ideas, both emanating out of the Enlightenment project. The early 19th century showed an increasing scientific interest in basic existential matters, such as the physical body, intuition, and instincts. Simultaneously, a social movement arose, which stressed the importance of civilization, education, humane conduct, and social reforms. Towards the close of the century, these two movements merged, while their focus shifted to an interest in the economy and morality of Nature, which increasingly displaced the earlier ideal of civilized society and the overt focus on social reforms. The investigation suggests that these developments shows that the discourse of animal ethics followed a circular rather than linear pattern. The era started with the humanitarian ideals of the Enlightenment and ended in the early decades of the 20th century with the appropriation of social-Darwinist morality.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
