3 ms·
>Our interpretation of what are thinking the animals can be wrong. Of course it can, but by resorting to this sort of interpretative relativism, you're bringin
by theon144 8y ago
>Our interpretation of what are thinking the animals can be wrong.
Of course it can, but by resorting to this sort of interpretative relativism, you're bringing the debate no further. Of course we can never tell whether animals feel anything such as emotion, but at this level, so you can't of other humans. In other words, the interpretation of emotions as authenthic rich mental states is just as valid for animals as it is for humans.
- pvaldes 8y ago> A) Of course we can never tell whether animals feel anything such as emotion, I could think in some exceptions to this rule, but lets ignore the "never" and assume that this is true for now. > B) but at this level, so you can't of other humans. False. Even if I can't communicate with a slug, I can communicate fairly well with other humans, feel empathy and understand their feelings. > C) In other words, the interpretation of emotions as authenthic rich mental states is just as valid for animals as it is for humans. Causal phallacy. A is true, so B is true [in fact is false], so C is equally valid for A and B. In fact neither A (of course we can't interpretate emotions of animals), nor B (we can't interpretate emotions in humans) justify C (therefore the interpretation of emotions is valid in both animals and humans).