3 ms·

That’s one anecdote There’s a real history to the argument in the article Numerous scholars have advocated that to remain objective one must avoid putting hum

That’s one anecdote There’s a real history to the argument in the article Numerous scholars have advocated that to remain objective one must avoid putting human traits on objects of study I think it stems from Abrahimic traditions, where God made us and none of us are to presume to be as powerful. Animals and objects are treated as mere things. Look at hardliners destroying art that has human form. The general story being God made us and we are inferior and must not resort to offending him with crude reproductions, lest he smite us for thinking we can do better.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>"and must not resort to offending him with crude reproductions" // It's not about reproductions (which are clearly impossible), but about images and sycophantic replacements. The imagery thing leads to a specific materialism; the replacement leads to us designing a god to reflect and applaud our ethical failings. Like turning to porn and eschewing one's duty to one's wife; or choosing an inanimate character as one's wife and imbuing her with a fetish for your own failings "I love your flab, the way you stink of stale beer and sweat really turns me on". FWIW in Abramic tradition animals are creatures made by God that humans are entrusted to care for, and yes use as food; custodians of creation. Your presentation looks like an inference of the created order based on looking at people's actions. Like watching traffic to find what the traffic laws are; that's a flawed methodology.