Sylph777

Here's what i consider to be some fundamental differences between man and animals in response to those who claim that mankind are just more evolved animals ....

- There exists between man and animal ( and more generally, the rest of the universe ) a difference of nature. Moreover, this difference is a hierarchy : man is superior to the animal ( and more generally to nature: the vegetable, the mineral, the latter encompassing the sidereal ). This hierarchical difference takes different forms : ontological ( man alone is shepherd of being), anthropological ( man alone is endowed with language and reason, man alone is informed by an immortal soul ), legal ( man alone is subject to rights and duties ), scientifical ( man alone is endowed with such a developed prefrontal cortex ), theological ( man alone is created in the image of God ), etc ....

- Between the human being and the animal, there is the difference of self-consciousness. Both eat, sleep, have cold, warm and suffer. But the animal does not know that it knows pain, hunger or tiredness individually. A person is able to individualize his or her consciousness and can imagine the cause and effect of any change and action. An animal can feel, but it cannot individualize its consciousness, because it does not have the meaning of "I". We are conscious of our appearance because in us there is an individual consciousness which makes us see ourselves different from others. On the other hand, a dog does not know whether he is beautiful or whether he is ugly... Because of this "I" consciousness, a human being is superior to all other living beings. Without this consciousness of "I", one can not realize the cause and effects of pain, pleasure, attachment, repulsion and so on... Animals are born with instinctive and collective knowledge. They live all the sufferings of the world. Not knowing the cause, they die without having tried to get out of their sufferings. The human being knows that he knows something. The animal knows, but he does not know that he knows something.

- More generally, in order for the comparison ( man / animal ) to be rigorous, we must try not to confuse the simple analogy ( superficial resemblance that masks a profound difference ) with the true identity ( which, on its side, can be masked by superficial differences ). Thus, for example, with regard to language : animals (eg bees, whales, etc.) may exchange information by means of signs; It is concluded that the animal possesses language, like man. But is not it going far too fast ? If we recall the reflections that have already been made on the subject of dialogue, we will certainly take a closer look, raising at least two questions: 1) that of the status of the other : is he really an interlocutor, that is to say, a person whose thoughts solicits a listening ?  Or is it the transmitter of a signal that is received ? 2) the question of the content of what is expressed or "communicated": to communicate "information" and to dialogue, is it the same thing ? On the one hand, an organism indicates to another organism that it is hungry, or that it wants to reproduce itself: it is the manifestation of a fact; On the other hand, two beings discuss together the purpose to be given to their existence: it is an interrogation on the meaning; between the two "communications," is there not an abyss? 

- Also, we cannot forget that man has a body. He must eat, sleep, and reproduce: in this, his kinship with the animal is obvious. But again, things are not so simple, at least for two reasons: 1) If certain needs are common to both men and animals, the way they are satisfied is not the same in both cases. Such as animal, man must eat and reproduce, but does not eat and does not reproduce like the animal; Man accepts to satisfy his physical needs only if certain conditions of another order ( aesthetic, moral ) are fulfilled. 2) In many ways, man demands infinitely more than what his body demands. For example, the search for the beautiful, the true and the righteous is essential for man, whereas from the point of view of the organism and its needs it is quite superfluous ( that is why the animal Ignores it superbly ). Finally, let us remark that this difference in relation to physical needs exists in man for better and worse: man is capable of sublime spiritual elevations, but also of violence and atrocities absolutely unknown to the animal world ( Torture, rape, pleasure to see suffering of the other...). But paradoxically, such behaviors confirm the infinite distance separating man from the animal: for only a being not limited to its physical dimension can experience such drifts. Even under its worst aspect, man does not join the animal: it does not become "bestial", as it is sometimes mistakenly said, but inhuman, which is quite another thing (the animal, on its side, Cannot become "inanimal").