Talk:Anthropomorphism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Animal Rights

Shouldn't animal rights be mentioned in the article as they're based on seeing - existing or not - human qualities in animals?

No, animal rights should not be mentioned in an article about anthropomorphism. Comme le Lapin 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because the qualities you're referring to, individual rights (unless you mean the capability for suffering, which is commonly believed to exist in animals), are not exclusively human, or even apply to all humans. At least, judging by history. Cats in ancient Egypt, cows in modern India, and pets throughout the world from ancient times to present have all been afforded some degree of individual rights. Conversely, slaves, rape and murder victims, and unnecessary casualties of war have all been denied some or all of their individual rights. So, it's not a human quality, it's just one that has been applied more often to humans. Besides, this article probably already pays a disproportionate amount of attention to animals, when pretty much everything can be (and is) anthropomorphised. -kotra 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. Peta and other Anti-hunting/fishing/meat eating activists have been using anthropomorphization for years in their campaigns. This is particularly true in the case of anti-fishing. It is unlikely that fish can even feel anything tantamount to what we would call pain, much less suffering. One of Peta's pamphlets, entitled "your daddy kills animals", depicts a cartoonish man gutting a fish, the fish have a look of terror on their "faces". However, considering the amount of brain power possesed by a fish, the man may as well have been husking an ear of corn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.201.76 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance is a bliss, I guess. Fish do feel pain, and it has been proven. The fact that the obvious had to be proven before people believed it is horrible enough, but that there are still people touting the old myths is just abhorrent. Feeling pain is so essential in the matters of survival that I can safely assume that almost every moving being and some more do feel pain, as simple reflexes only would never prevent you from making the same mistakes over and over again until you are dead. But man is too pretentious to see that there is nothing special about him besides his arrogance and that god he has created after his own image. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Guess PETA and the rest of us should stop walking on grass then...

Seriously, the argument that we shouldn't eat animals because they "feel" is ridiculous since ALL life reacts to stimuli. Difference between a normal person and a vegan/vegetarian is we don't discriminate. If you argue based on the above reason you're a moron, if you argue for vegetarianism based on nutritional facts then I give you respect. And please Lord Gon don't talk about religion especially Christianity if you don't know it. Christianity (Catholicism at least) teaches that you should take only what is required and not to waste things. So, don't hoard wealth, don't eat too much, don't be too lazy (wasting time), etc. Read a little more before you pass judgement. Last, I seriously question your objectivity in any article given your last sentence. PedanticSophist (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you distort a comment that is simply correcting what has proven to be wrong - being that fish don't feel pain - into a meat eating vs. vegetarianism idiocy. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I said people shouldn't eat animals, because they feel pain, as I never even touched that subject. So, I ask you, how dare you to call me a moron, if you can't even stick to what I have actually written? Do you feel so offended by the mere thought that fish feel pain and that man is no more than just one dumb animal among many others that your mind spins out of control and ends automatically in some kind of self-defense mode, which forces you to create a strawman in a desperate attempt to find a way to attack me? And how can you say that I shouldn't talk about religion? I know very well what I am talking about here, but I guess you need to do a little bit more reading on the subject. Many religions, not only the Christian one, teach that man was created by some god in his own image. Scientific prove for this claim? Obviously none. Its bogus, crap made up by the people so they can feel superior to all the other beings and don't have to apply the same morals on them, as they do on humans. Everyone who has some brains should realize that it was man who created god after his image, and not the other way round. To quote Mark Twain: "The noblest work of God? Man. Who found it out? Man" How convenient. 'nuff said. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Are you that narcissistic that everything has to be about you? I wrote, "...the argument that we shouldn't eat animals because they 'feel' is ridiculous...If you argue based on the above reason you're a moron..." I'm calling you a moron unless you fill that criteria. Do you contend that we shouldn't eat animals because they might feel pain? If you do, you're a moron. If as you contend that you weren't arguing that point, then I did not call you a moron.

As for the Christianity side of this. You really shouldn't try to debate about religion, you're obviously way too biased. You implicated the statement, "Man is pretentious because he thinks he was created in God's image." You further clarified this by saying that people think that because they want to feel superior. First, whether we are created in God's image is moot to this debate. But since you went there, I will reply with this and try not to debate the point any further. Scientific proof for the claim, "Man was not created in God's image" or "Man created God in his image"? Do you have a snap shot of God, a genetic mapping of God's DNA? Oh, none? As you say, "'nuff said." Now, the point that matters in this is whether the purpose of the idea of us being created in God's image. Which was to make us feel superior. That is what allows me to say that you shouldn't be debating religion. It is true, that the idea that we are created in God's image has fostered at times the notion that we are superior above all others. That does not mean the purpose of the statement is to give us that notion. I do not argue the true purpose, but I can prove that your presented purpose is false. Within the realm of Christianity, the notion that we are superior to other life and that we have complete dominion over other life or that any one individual is more holy in the eyes of God is not held as a basic truth. The Catholic church states that all life should be respected. Section 2415-2418 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this:

"2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."

This clarifies a probable purpose of the statement. Which is to say that it is okay for us to kill animals. But can we find instances of people that don't hold that statement or that are atheist who believe that they are superior for one reason or another? Yes, yes we can. Nazi Germany. Aryan race was "scientifically" superior to the Jews and other races. This did not stem from a religious belief. Nazi dogma doesn't state that the Aryans were created in God's image and that's why they're better than the other people. Your presented theory about the statement therefore is false. Please come back when you can present proof and some facts. PedanticSophist (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so in my initial comment I didn't say anything about eating animals, nonetheless you address exactly that. May I ask what you are aiming at by twisting the discussion from "fish feel pain" to "don't eat animals" other than trying to create a strawman? You wrote "Guess PETA and the rest of us should stop walking on grass then". What's the point of that statement? Has it anything to do with what I have written? No, absolutely nothing. Whyever you wrote that, I don't know. You also wrote that "the argument that we shouldn't eat animals because they "feel" is ridiculous", although I never made that argument in the first place, and you go on to call me a moron, if I'd argue that way. Your point here? I don't see any other than to try to insult me through a backdoor. If this wasn't directed at me, then sorry for being so narcissistic to think that it is me who is addressed by a reply to a comment I have written. Fact is, your answer was way off target and addressed nothing of what I said.

Now to religion. You call me biased, but then religion itself is biased, and many religious people are also severly biased. In the end, everybody is biased, so if everyone followed your advice and stopped talking about topics where they show some bias, then nobody would say anything anymore.
To clarify one thing, I never claimed that only religous people have that bizarre need to be superior and special among the creatures of this world. I am pretty sure there arejust as many people out there who have nothing to do with religion, but still don't think twice when saying that a human life must be worth so much more than that of another being. To say it bluntly, these people are outright stupid, not realising that every form of "Worth" is absolutely arbitrarily applied. But at least they can't fall back on magical thinking and an invisible, allmighty man in the sky, who has sent them the absolute truth in form of a tome full of silly and boring stories, to reinforce their stupidity.
Do I have a snapshot of god? Of course not. Though, I hope you realise that your argument works both ways, and you are actually playing into my hands by making it. I don't need a photo of god, because it's not me who came up with the "man was created in god's image" shite. I don't know how god looks like, if he looks like anything, or if he actually exists. I don't know, nor do you, nor does anybody elses. So, if anyone would have to show that snapshot, it's those people who believe in that god's image lunacy, not me. But obviously they don't have one either, which doesn't stop them from touting their myths. And why do they tout it? What is the point to claim that one is the image of god? What would you call it, if I claimed that I am the image of god? Pretentious? It certainly is. I'm sure everyone would call me a fucking loon or an arrogant asshole, if I'd made such a connection between myself and Mr. "Créateur du monde" up there in heaven. But if it is applied to the whole species, then, all of a sudden, everyone thinks it is fine? Yeah, sure. If you ask me, all it shows is the lunacy of a naked ape that is completely out of touch with reality. And now, I ask you, what can anyone get from claiming to be the image of god, other than to show how special he is? What's the point of this claim, if you don't want to justify treating all other beings like subcreatures? Your guess?

And now to your 'proof' that the true purpose of this claim was different. Pretty much every religion I know of puts man in some kind of special connection with god, and I never explicitly singled out one of them, while your source refers to only one, Christianity, and of that reflects only the point of view of the roman-catholic church, meaning that it is absolutely irrelevant for the other half of the Christian people. Furthermore this catechism wasn't released that long ago, so it's a rather recent interpretation, and as we all know, interpretations change over time and are often often heavily influenced by problems and movements present at the time they emerge, meaning all you provide is the still life of a moving picture, a picture that was certainly different a hundred or a thousand years ago. But even what you provide is heavily fraught with human arrogance.
As you cite "Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity." So, this pretty much claims that all the animals and plants are only there for our enjoyment, that they are not there for themselves, but for us, and that's outright nasty. Following this quote all those non-human beings are, by god's will, alive to be our slaves, and as long as it improves the quality of human life, we are free to do with them whatever we want. True, it presents it in nicer words, but overall it comes down to just that, slavery.
You write "God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image." Sorry, but what kind of crap is that? Nobody has made us steward of anything. Most animals would be better off without us, and nature wouldn't mind if every single one of us would rott in the concrete wastelands we have created. Hundreds of millions of years this planet was fine without the god-appointed steward, so what else is this than just one more expression of the omnipresent human hybris? And what a fine steward we are, raping this planet to such a degree that we force ever more species into extinction and destroy what even we need to live.
And then this: "Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives." So, we are allowed to kill how many of them, just to save one of us, maybe, one day? Is a human life really that precious that it is ok to keep and kill millions of animals every year in what can be easily described as torture camps? Why? Because god said so? Certainly not. I tell you why we do it, because we can. That's all the reason we need. And to morally justify it, god comes in quite handy, because, after all, we are made special by him, being his image and granted stewardship of a whole world and all that.
Last one: "One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons." And why not? Aren't animals worth to be loved just as much as a human, because of our specialty? Or is it simply to prevent those stupid enough to believe this waste of words from trying to decry the cruelties we humans inflict on them in our futile attempt to satisfy our own selfish hedonistic needs? The text you presented sounds like propagating kindness towards animals, but only on the surface. If you'd dig a little bit deeper you'd realise that it oozes with human selfishness and ignorance, expressing exactly that despicable way of egomaniacal thinking I was talking about.
Sir, you set out to prove your point. You ended up proving mine. 'nuff said. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Sigh...I thought I could just say that and you might realize that the original response's entirety was not to be directed at solely you. No where in my first response did I say, "You talked about eating animals." Understand tabbing as well please. You responded to the ip signed comment (text started out with, "It should be mentioned...") and thus indicated that by your single tabbing (":"). That is who I was responding do. His comment implies the subject of eating fish or in general animals. What I directed solely at you was about the single off topic sentence you made at the end of your comment. If I what I said was solely directed at you I would have tabbed twice ("::"). Please read, I beg you please read things.

You did indeed claim that only religious people need to feel superior. "But man is too pretentious to see that there is nothing special about him besides his arrogance and that god he has created after his own image." Notice the "and" between "...besides his arrogance..." and "...that god he has created..." For your statement to be true, both conditions around that must be true. Man must be arrogant and he must have created god in his image. The latter condition directly implies religious people. By your statement, with regards to the subject at hand, you are saying that a person who is religious feels superior and that someone who isn't religious doesn't feel superior. This is because someone who is not religious would not fulfill your second condition.

I said I didn't want to debate this since it was moot. Please look up the definition of "moot" as well. I didn't "play into your hands" in any way. I can't play into your hands if I abstained from debating the point. I gave you the stalemate argument. Both sides of it have no proof. You showed that "my" side had no proof to our theory. I showed that your side had no proof to their theory. You continuing down that line of debate just makes you look pretentious. The point was irrelevant to the debate at large and therefore would be a waste of time to spend energy on it.

I don't know what point of yours you think I proved. Your statements are are further proof of your lack of objectivity. To chop up the source material and poorly contend the material therein is not proving anything. If you have trouble understanding what they are saying you're lost in this debate. Let's honestly look at some of the things you said.

"You write 'God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.' Sorry, but what kind of crap is that? Nobody has made us steward of anything. Most animals would be better off without us, and nature wouldn't mind if every single one of us would rott in the concrete wastelands we have created. Hundreds of millions of years this planet was fine without the god-appointed steward, so what else is this than just one more expression of the omnipresent human hybris?"

The theory here states that God made us stewards of nature. So for you to logically refute that, you must disprove God, which you can not do. Further, you go on to imply the statement that man is not the steward of nature using this logic.Man has not been a good steward of nature; therefore, man is not the steward of nature. Let's not get into the possible ramifications of the conclusion were it to be true and not digress. Rather let's look at why your logic does not support its conclusion. For man to not have been a good steward of nature, he most have been a steward of nature. Therefore, by stating that man has not been a good steward you are saying that man is/was a steward of nature. To put this all simply. Just because Denethor II was a bad steward of Gondor doesn't mean he wasn't the steward of Gondor. One can fail at their job and still have counted it as their job.

Next: "And then this: 'Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.' So, we are allowed to kill how many of them, just to save one of us, maybe, one day? Is a human life really that precious that it is ok to keep and kill millions of animals every year in what can be easily described as torture camps? Why? Because god said so? Certainly not. I tell you why we do it, because we can. That's all the reason we need."

I'll repeat, please read things. You did two main things wrong here. First, you omitted a condition from a conditional statement in your argument and incorrectly read the condition you did read. You state, that what the sentence says is that it's okay to kill millions of animals to save one person. The condition you omitted is, "... if it remains within reasonable limits..." By your response I would assume you mean to say that killing millions of animals in torture camps is unreasonable. That therefore does not satisfy the condition of reasonable limits. What you misread was that it said "human lives" not "a human life." So to kill animals for research to save a single human life does not fulfill the second condition. But me saying that second part is unnecessary. The very fact that the first condition was not met means that it does not fulfill the conditional statement. The second thing wrong with the above quoted is this. Your logic is arguing against the use of animals in testing. Yet later you state that it's fine to kill them for testing. So you're arguing against logic (quotation from the catechism) that is trying to prove a conclusion (it's okay to kill animals for testing) that you yourself hold.

Last: "'One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.' And why not? Aren't animals worth to be loved just as much as a human, because of our specialty? Or is it simply to prevent those stupid enough to believe this waste of words from trying to decry the cruelties we humans inflict on them in our futile attempt to satisfy our own selfish hedonistic needs? The text you presented sounds like propagating kindness towards animals, but only on the surface. If you'd dig a little bit deeper you'd realise that it oozes with human selfishness and ignorance, expressing exactly that despicable way of egomaniacal thinking I was talking about."

All I'm really going to say to this is. So you want to have sex with animals.

Again you're missing the point and presenting dime-store logic. There is this concept in the world called objectivity. I say you are biased not to point out something that is readily apparent, that we are all to some degree biased, but rather that you are overly biased. What other reason could you have to make a back-handed comment about religion in a debate on anthropomorphism, and more specifically animal rights. You debate using marginally inflammatory remarks, i.e. calling every religious person stupid. You debate using misquoted, poorly referenced, and out of context sentences. And you persist in thinking that you're the only one in this discussion. I call you biased, not to say you should not express your opinions on a subject, but rather because this is wikipedia. Information presented here must be objective and present both points of view. The subject of this talk discussion was "Should animal rights be included in the article?" Let's stick to that please. I'm wasting my time continuing this off topic discussion. And I am also at fault for helping to start an off topic discussion. But this was done almost half a year ago, and it's amazing that you would take this so personally when you're comment occurred almost a year and half ago. PedanticSophist (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, how I love a healthy discussion. Yep, it's off-topic, but whatever. Let's take a look at your statement.

Even though your tabbing indicated that you were responding to the comment left by Mr. IP, it wouldn't be the first time that somebody forgets to add the right number of tabs. The reasons I came to the conclusion that it was a reply to my post was on the one hand the mentioning of my nick, and second that your comment didn't make a lot of sense in connection with the one you assigned it to. Nothing in the IP guy's comment suggested he thinks it is wrong to eat animals, because they feel pain. If anything he seems to be pro-meat, so why should you argue with him about something you actually agree with?

I never made the claim that only religious people have the need to feel superior. Sure, I said that the only things special about man are his arrogance and that god he made up. But that doesn't automatically suggest that only people who believe in god are arrogant. All it says is that people are arrogant, and that they have created something which they called god. Following your logic, if I'd say the only things special about man are his jealousy and the cars he builds, I'd mean that people driving cars are jealous, which isn't the case at all. It would simply mean that people are jealous and build cars. Both statements don't need each other to be true.
Furthermore I don't single out religious people with the god-statement. The concept of god came up a long time ago, and if I say man has created god, it's no different than saying man has created the spear. It applies to all people, not only those who have actually created or used a spear. So, "man has created god", then claims "god has created man after his image" is just another way of showing how arrogant man's thinking is.

You call this discussion "moot", nonetheless you put a lot of effort in it for someone who doesn't really care and doesn't want to debate the matter. I don't know if you are familiar with how science works, but generally, if you make a claim you have to back it up, with proof. So you claim that man is god's image, so what you'd have to do is to prove the existence of god and that he has a human form. You can't do that, therefore your claim is scientifically unsound. The fact that I can't disprove your claim doesn't help you in any way, because many things that are obviously crap, can't be disproven. That's why we have a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's just like your human god, neither can you prove, nor disprove it's existence. The main difference between god an his Noddlety is that nobody would be stupid enough to take it seriously. So, as long as you can't prove your claim we have to assume that nobody was created in anyones image, that nobody is the steward of anything and that man is worth no more than any other being. Everything's equal, until proven otherwise.

You say I lack objectivity. On the other hand you change the meaning of my writings to your liking. You say I'm biased, but never stated where and how I showed any bias. All you present are empty phrases without backing them up. Did I chop your sources? Yeah. Did I change their meaning by doing so? No, so I'm allowed to chop as much as I want, as long as the original sense persists. Do I have trouble understanding the meaning of what your source says? No, I just go beyond the shiny surface, all the way down to its rotten and dirty core, and that is filled with stinking human arrogance.

It's not me who has to disprove that god has made us steward of the earth. If it worked that way anyone could claim the he was made, by the Lord himself, steward of America, king of the world, or master of life and death. Luckily, for all of us, it doesn't work that way. If you claim you were assigned by god, you have to prove it. If you can't, there's always a place for you in the next asylum. I never said that we weren't made steward, because we suck as such. I said we weren't steward in the first place. But if you choose to believe in this expression of megalomaniacal self-love, then you have to admit that we failed in our stewardship big time. According to your belief god has made a greedy ape master of the world, who has nothing else to do, but to destroy his creation. Great choice allmighty one. Great choice.

Yes, the statement about medical research has the condition that it has to stay "within reasonable limits", but there is no explanation whatsoever what these reasonable limits actually are. If it isn't defined, it's subject to your personal interpretation. One may say it is reasonable to kill millions of animals to save a single human life, and others may set a lower threshold. No matter what, it still puts a human life over that of an animal. And that is the point. Furthermore, you once again show here that you can't read, and simply distort comments however it suits you. Never, not with a single word, I approved killing animals in testing labs. All I said was, that we humans do that, because we can. Not because god made us special, but because we are able to do so. God serves just the purpose of morally justifying it. So, I ask you to point out that part where I stated animal testing is fine. You claim, I argue against logic, but then you go on to prove your point by making things up. Sorry, but that's just lame.

Animal sex? When did the text say anything about that? Ok, I'll help you along, because it seems you don't even know what your own source says. Either that, or you try to distort the meaning of the quote (which you accused me of beforehand, btw).

"2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."

Where does this even touch the matter of sex? Nowhere. It's about love, not fucking, or can't you separate between these two? It's obvious what is meant here and even provides an example for those slow in the head. If an animal and a human are suffering, and you can relief the suffering of one of them, by spending money, then you have to donate it to the human, because he deserves more of your love than the animal. If you won't suggest that this money spending is just a kryptic way to describe prostitution, then the text makes beyond clear that you shouldn't show the same amount of affection towards animals as you do towards humans, which has, again, nothing to do with sex. It doesn't bother to explain why, but then those believing it certainly also believe that man is the image of god, steward of the world, and overall pretty special, so he deserves this extra amount of love. Not.

So, who's missing the point here? Do you even know what I'm talking about? I have to assume, you do not. Accusing me of being biased, won't change that. All it does is sounding like a cheap excuse, so you don't have to defend your claims. Why did I include the image-of-god remark you ask? Because it is the best example to show how pretentious and arrogant man is, so arrogant that he thinks he is special enough that only he has feelings, even the most basic and necessary ones, and therefore can easily claim that fish don't feel pain, even though this is completely against common sense. Do I use inflammatory remarks? Sure, if you want to call it that, I'd say I simply call things what they are. If you, as a religious person, feel offended by that, so be it. But then you should rethink the whole matter and ponder if you don't take your religion a little bit too seriously. Religion means believing, and believing means that you don't know. So, if you present what you believe as truth, you shouldn't be surprised, if you earn some snide remarks. If you believe in god, fine, but don't expect this belief to be true, and that others follow any form of "logic" based on your faith. About your accusation of using misquoted, poorly referenced, and out of context sentences, well, don't throw stones in a glass house. And please, where did I persist that I think I am the only one in this discussion? Did this remark even have a purpose other than filling space? Finally, it's interesting that you find it amazing that I bothered to write a reply after half a year, because you bothered enough to start this off-topic discussion with the reply to a comment that was almost a year old. See, the comment you allegedly replied to was signed on 11 August 2008, my reply to that was written on 3 November 2008, and yours came on 10 July 2009. Given the fact that you weren't even involved in the discussion before and that your comment didn't provide anything of value and was generally pretty off the mark, you must have bothered quite a bit to write it. And obviously you still do, looking at your long answers. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

You're single-minded, pretentious, and narcissistic. As I said, "I'm wasting my time continuing this off topic discussion." If you want to think that my lack of appropriate response is "giving up" go for it. Anything to feed your narcissism. PedanticSophist (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling is the last resort of the defeated, even more so, when there's nothing else to back it up. And you never had a lot to back up anything in the first place. That you are calling me narcissistic, although it is you who clinches to the god-given dogma of human superiority just shows me that you have run out of options. But you are right, continuing this discussion is futile, because you are apparently one of those persons who will stick to their beliefs no matter how often they have been proven wrong. And yeah, you lost. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

"Seriously, the argument that we shouldn't eat animals because they feel is ridiculous since ALL life reacts to stimuli." Animals have the cognitive capacity to feel pain, while plants presumably do not. Perhaps this is where this augment comes from for most people. The idea that we should not eat animals based on their feelings of pain could be as simple as animals are easier to identify with and thus feel empathy for or as complicated as a religious belief or other set of morals. After all, we unanimously agreed not to eat each other. Arguments over whether non-human animals can feel pain can be considered somewhat subjective but the major diagnostic evidence given is typically based on a how an animal reacts and how that relates to what is considerably "human" pain. Also, I think Lord Gøn was only making presumptions about how people tend to view a god as their "personal" god, ascribing characteristics similar to their own that they would what such a god to have. Hence, anthropomorphizing a god. RP9 (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

--RP9 writes: "and thus feel empathy for" -- that is sympathy you are feeling; empathy is emotional communication. It takes two, or perhaps more, beings to have empathy. --John Bessa (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Look the point I'm trying to make is somewhere there has to be some line drawn as to what is acceptable and inacceptable to eat. And in my mind if you're going to not eat animals because, you're killing life, or you're worried they feel it, then you shouldn't be eating plants either. It's nature, animals kill other living organisms to survive. Unless you suggest we develop the ability to synthesize light in our bodies as energy or we start eating fecal matter there's no escaping that point. I'm not against vegetarianism, just not for the above reasons. Nutritional value is one thing, subjective reasoning is another. PedanticSophist (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unless you suggest we develop the ability to synthesize light in our bodies as energy" Anthropophototrophs? That actually sounds kind of cool. Although you would need a replacement for Chlorophyll that didn't just absorb the red end of the spectrum, because that would look rather strange. Personally though, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they chose not to eat animals, for subjective reasons or not, because it is perfectly within their free choice to do so. I also think it is a valid consideration to not eat animals purely because the way the animals are treated, especially on factory farms. So I think many peoples reasoning for being vegetarian or vegan go far beyond mere subjective reasoning. RP9 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Subjective reasons are not good enough if you're going to stick it in people's faces. If you're arguing the nutritional benefits of partial vegetarianism then that's fine. There is scientific evidence that says we should eat more non-meat products than meat products. PedanticSophist (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy

Would not a Constitutional Monarchy also be an example of 'Anthropomorphism' in the sense that the constitutional monarch personifies and embodies the abstract notion of nationhood? 'Personify' searches direct here. Would this not warrent mention here?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if constitutional monarchy (or monarchs in general) would be am example of anthropomorphism. That more properly would be an example of personification, whose article Personify should have redirected to (I've fixed the redirect now), or perhaps national personification (though that seems to be more about fictional characters personifying a nation). As far as monarchs go, only the idea of monarchs symbolizing a nation could be considered anthropomorphism, not the actual monarchs (they are allegedly actual humans, not just humanlike) Constitutional monarchy is one level further removed: it's a form of government, that has a monarch, that may embody the idea of nationalist personification, that is anthropomorphic. Anyway, my point is that we would probably need a reliable source that states that constitutional monarchy (or monarchs in general) are examples of anthropomorphism, if we were to mention it in this article. -kotra (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they might, as leaders tend to be robots or puppets, and not really human in the sense that most people are. --74.88.152.221 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthromorphism wrt to animals

In my study of empathy, I saw the term used to describe people who feel that animals have empathy. Animals clearly do, I think, as empathy is related to raising the young in terms of evolution. Further, spindle and mirror cells are called empathic neurons; whales, elephants, and all primates have them. I write about this in my paper Spiritual Darwinism.

From either POV, it is not mentioned in the article, and I think it should be.--John Bessa (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam

The article says Islam rejects Anthropomorphism. This is not entirely true. Though Islam thinks of God being higher than humans, Islam does NOT believe that God is Omnipresent, but that he has in fact the appearance of a human. I think it is safe to say Islam thinks of God as Anthropomorphic in appearance, but not in character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.0.73 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The post above me is largely Salafi/Wahhabi propaganda, as will be demonstrated in these three links.

* [[1]]
* [[2]]
* [[3]]

Salafism/Wahhabism is the only "muslim" sect that doesn't believe in Omnipresence, as well as the only one today that actually supports Anthropomorphism. All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence criticized anthropomorphism as it is the worst form of shirk.

"Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of a person—as do the Bayaniyya [the followers of Bayan ibn Sam‘an al-Tamimi (d. 119/737)], the Mughiriyya [followers of al-Mughira ibn Sa‘id al-‘Ajali (d. 119/737)], the Jawaribiyya [followers of Dawud al-Jawaribi, (d. 2nd Hijra century)], and the Hishamiyya [followers of Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi, the teacher of al-Jawaribi in anthropomorphism]—is only worshipping a person like himself. As for the permissibility of eating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him, his ruling is that of an idol-worshipper. . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists of Khurasan, of the Karramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelievers because they affirm that Allah has a physical limit and boundary from underneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne (Baghdadi, Usul al-din [Istanbul: Matba‘a al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337)." Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037)

A direct quote from a traditional Imam.

Second the Quran actually constantly describes Allah's Omnipresence numerous times, directly refuting the salafi deviants, for example

"To Allah belong the east and the West: Whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, all-Knowing." Sura 2:115 [[4]]

You can't get any clearer than that. So yeah, Islam DOES rejects Anthropomorphism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksweith (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redundant?

User:PedanticSophist seems intent on removing relevant referenced text from the section on literature and arts without a consistent explanation as to why. It seems counterproductive, especially considering the section is in need of expansion and citations. I've restored the relevant text (again) while awaiting an explanation as to why information that is both cited and relevant to the section should be removed. —71.171.117.12 (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like I'm out to get you or something. Please try to stay civil. I've given the simple explanations in my reversions. I'm assuming you don't understand proper procedure here. The history list is not the place to debate an addition or removal. The text I keep removing is not relevant and is more of an explanation as to what "furry fandom" is. Putting a link to the wikipage on Furry Fandom is the best course of action. Particularly considering that your text does not add any value to the article.PedanticSophist (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It was civilly and plainly stated that you've been removing relevant referenced text from the section in literature and arts without a consistent (and in fact, sometimes contradictory) explanation as to why. That's not a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your actions up to this point, and I feel your accusations of incivility are unwarranted and misguided.

The text you keep removing is an explanation of the present-day fandom for fictional anthropomorphic animal characters, commonly known as Furry fandom. Claiming that the text does not add any value is solely your opinion and removing it on that basis is contrary to the letter and spirit of collaboration. —71.171.117.12 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no it wasn't. Connotation was definitely negative and bordered on an ad hominim. Saying "...seems counterproductive" is an unneccessary comment. It paints my actions in a negative or malicious light. Everyone on here is just trying to make the article the best it can be (excluding the vandals). Just because it goes against what you want doesn't mean it's counterproductive to the article. Counterproductive to you, maybe. Last, I'm not the only one that has removed the text. If you'll check the history there is at least one other person who has removed the text in question for the same exact reason. Declaring something as fact does no make it so, hence why we are here in the talk page. When other people are continually removing something you've added, it is on you to discuss the subject and why you think it should be added. Since you didn't do that, I invited you to. But let's drop this little tit for tat and just focus on the real situation, rather than "hurt feelings" and who did what. That means I'd rather drop this section of the subject and focus on the relevant debate here, since the above is a waste of space on this talk page.

Since you haven't clearly explained why you believe the text in question should be included, I will tell you why I won't let it. Plainly put, furry fandom is not literature. Therefore, putting anything about furry fandom in the "in other literature" section is improper. Just because there may be books on furry fandom or a book about "furry books" does not mean it should be included in the section. Furthermore, the text in question spent half it's time promoting another article. By promoting another article, I mean giving a description of that article. If I wanted to know that I'd just go to the article explaining that topic (ie Furry Fandom), hence why I put the link in the "see also" section. Obviously "furry fandom" is related to the subject. The text did not include any information on how anthropomorphism has affected literary work, which is the purpose of that section. It meerly stated that people celebrate anthropomorphism.

Lastly, the fandom has not created any major developments in this subject's use in literature. PedanticSophist (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll cut right to the chase: A study of the history of this article will show I am restoring relevant referenced content which one or two people (mostly one) are continually removing, sometimes with no explanation whatsoever. It you want to remove relevant referenced content, the impetus is on you to discuss why it should be removed. I'll note you didn't have a problem with the sentence before, so what's up with the inconsistency?

Be that as it may, Furry is the genre which focuses on literature and artwork that features fictional anthropomorphic animal characters. It has affected literary works by becoming a distinct fandom in its own right in the past thirty years. The text doesn't "promote" other articles any more than the section on Children's literature does. It is definitely relevant to the subject, though. Thank you for your feedback. I've edited the sentence to clarify so there should be no further misunderstandings. —71.171.117.12 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The additional information as it stands now (May 10, 2010 @ 9:21 EST) is fine. Particularly because of the new organization of the section. It is long winded though and could stand to be shortened and more concise. What part of my name don't you understand. ;P I suggest looking up "pedantism".

Lastly, whether a given section of text was previously there or not does not make it a candidate for instantaneous addition to an article. There are numerous vandalism submissions that are removed. By your standard they have a right to be re-included. Looking through the talk page there is little to no (I say little in the off chance I missed something) of discussion about furry fandom. Even though the sentence is now seemingly valid, the reference is not. A wikipage is not a suitable reference. Ask any professor at a university and they will tell you not to reference wikipedia (wiki) pages. If you can come up with a suitable reference that corroborates the statements you've included in the article, I'm perfectly fine with keeping it there. Finding this reference would also count for you providing your reasoning as to why the text is relevant (which you still have not done). I'll leave it up for a few days to give you time to find the appropriate reference, before I remove the text. But I will be removing the reference link and noting that it requires a proper reference. Further, if you do find an appropriate reference I'll be removing the see also link, since the text provides a link to "furry fandom" hence, making the see also one redundant.

Please remember, no one here is your enemy or your opposition. So attacking my character is wholly unneccessary. Most of us here just want to make sure everything put forth in the article is factual and the article as a whole is neutral without any bias. PedanticSophist (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: After looking over the article history, some things were taken out of context. You'll notice the sentence was removed by someone else, and prior to that I had been removing it. Someone else removing it reaffirmed my judgement that it should be removed. This time when the tit for tat of removal was happening again, I asked for explanation. There's my brief logic. I'll reiterate what I'm asking of you and anyone else that wants to add that text. Provide an explanation in the talk page (since it is a disputed addition) and add a suitable reference. PedanticSophist (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I feel I should add this to the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith PedanticSophist (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I think your attempts (twice now) to equate restoring relevant, referenced material with vandalism is farfetched, personally. Vandalism has nothing to do with this, unless you want to talk about Sneaky Vandalism involving carefully whittling away valid references—like the way the link to Furry Fandom was unceremoniously removed originally with no explanation whatsoever. (Truth be known, there has been a chronic problem on Wikipedia of people vandalizing articles that mention Furry fandom by removing references because they don't like it, but I'm sure you'll agree removing material because one doesn't like isn't really proper behavior for an editor.)

Coincidentally, you are incorrect that the cited reference was an invalid one. The reference cited was not a wikipage as you claimed, but the book Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction, edited by none other than longtime fandom historian Fred Patten. I've restored the citation and updated the link to point to a Google Books page rather than WikiFur, and should eliminate your stated concerns.

Lastly, I really don't know where you got the idea that I think anyone here is my "enemy" or that anyone is out to "get me" or that I've attacked your character, but it certainly isn't based on anything I said and your putting words in my mouth is unappreciated. If you feel I've attacked your character in some way, I certainly apologize, but to be honest I'm not seeing this borderline ad hominem, and your continued accusations of such aren't relevant to the article nor helpful to the discussion here. Please stop. —173.72.163.107 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient here. Please read: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia. The reference was a wikipage, in fact you state it yourself later "I've restored the citation and updated the link to point to a Google Books page rather than WikiFur..." A wikifur page would be considered a wikipage. Not Wikipedia per say. But an unpublished, editted by all source. I simply asked for a reliable source. I'm not asking much here. I waited several days per good wikipedia ettiquette in giving a person time to find a proper citation before removing an addition. I don't know who you are, 173.72.163.107; but I've been talking to, 71.171.117.12. Neither you nor the latter individual have done what this talk page is for. Which is to explain your contested addition to the article. All that's been said by either of you is complain about what I've done. I'd appreciate next time you respond to this not to include references to myself or to other individuals when trying to explain an edit. In my mind what should have been done "day 1" so to speak on this talk page topic is state why the editor feels that the text in question should be put there and supporting information to that affect. Rather than, "User:PedanticSophist seems intent on removing relevant referenced text..." which is unneccessary, why would I, assuming good faith, remove something if I thought it was relevant. I wouldn't, I obviously thought the text was not relevant and/or improperly cited, therefore it seems obvious that an explanation as to why the text is relevant would be in order. Simply put, at this point all that was necessary was for you or the other individual to reinclude the text and the new citation with a better link and then say as much in the edit. Clip, clap, done.

Now, unless you want to further discuss the relevancy and proper citation of the text in question I'm not responding to you or the other individual anymore. It is getting pointless and cyclical. PedanticSophist (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion was contested because you were removing a relevant published source, Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction. You can't claim it was unpublished, because anyone can check the history and see it was cited with an ISBN number and everything. Be that as it may, the onus remained on you to explain why you thought relevant referenced text should be removed, and if you felt this was a discussion that should have been occurring on the talk page, there's no reason you couldn't have done so. Edit histories are not a place for debating the article. —96.247.205.90 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiki-ettiquette and everything I have read in relation to this incident the "onus" of evidence and debate was on the person adding material. Removal of information requires less scrutiny than addition. Particularly since the content in question was for a time not present in the article. "Edit histories are not a place for debating the article." I believe I already stated that fact and expressed concern earlier about myself engaging in it. All that aside, further debate of these points is frivolous. The point here I feel, is that the attitude in the opening statements of this debate were rude and defaming. If not than that I was being treated with prejudice with regards to my actions. As a third party individual to the tete-a-tete between 71.171.117.12 and myself you appear to be biased. I do not disagree that I may have done some wrongs in the aforementioned debate, but one must be truly biased to see one side or the other as being innocent. PedanticSophist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

If you truly felt edit histories weren't the place for debating an article, you should have brought it to take talk page to begin with, and I disagree that removing relevant cited material should somehow be subject to less scrutiny than any other edits. Both actions seem like attempts to sneak through edits without any discussion at all, and that's not what a collaborative encyclopedia is about. —96.247.205.90 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics

Could we expand this article describing the different characteristics associated with particular animals. Foxes are cunning and sly, etc? Maybe put it in other literature section? Depends I guess on where you categorize folk tales. PedanticSophist (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Pedantic. There's a nice list of these in Stereotypes of animals - it should be linked in somehow...

But of course the article is so stubbily short at the moment. Unlike the talk page! --Annielogue (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There - I've added it in.--Annielogue (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Looks good. PedanticSophist (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

new section: In science

Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel - a lion-headed figurine found in Germany and dating to the Upper Paleolithic

There are a number of mentions of animals and biology above (yes, I've read all the discussions - - phew!) and, given the importance of the idea of anthropomorphism in science, I've added a new section.

I've just remembered there's a link to "Anthropomorphism" entry in the Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships (Horowitz A., 2007) in the external links section - I haven't read that yet. I guess it could have more material we could use. I don't know if I've got the balance right, but there has obviously been a huge shift in the way anthropomorphism has been viewed in science during the 20th century.

On a more general note, as many have commented above, I feel the article needs much more on religion (difficult to do) and on literature, especially children's literature (without a list).

This article has been through a lot of changes, and looking back over the years, some of what we need has been there before.

A "pre-history" section too, as artifacts give some indication of anthropomorphism (see image).--Annielogue (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a prehistory section.--Annielogue (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just expanded literature section, with subsections for fables, fairy tales and children's literature. Not a lot of references for this part, but then again nothing at all controversial. And there are a lot more refs than the four there were a few days ago.--Annielogue (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The "In Science" seems a little less neutral than it could be. Nothing serious though, just a change in some wording and it should be fine. Instead of "Usefulness of Anthropomorphism" maybe "Use of Anthropomorphism." I don't think this article or section should be debating the use of it in science, rather just how it's been used. Because there is clearly a debate there.

When it comes to biology there is definitely a difference between the stereotypical imagery associated with some animals and how those animals actually are. Like for instance lions being noble kings of the jungle. When they kill baby males, sit around all day sleeping and screwing, and are polygamists (which in most cultures would not be considered that "noble" by human standards). PedanticSophist (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'd been editing articles on the great apes so I was struggling, not entirely successfully I agree, to give proper emphasis to the importance of excluding anthropomorphism. The heading could change as you say.--Annielogue (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Furry Fandom

The citation as it stands is adequate, but I believe there is some room for improvement. At the page provided in the citation link, the book appears to be about which stories are popular, rather than about the Furry Fandom in general. The overview says this, "..The collection also features informative introductions and bibliographies detailing the origins and history of the sub-genre..." Alluding to the bibliographies. Is there not a better source that can be used for citation? That point aside, what is the page number(s) that the derived fact (now present in this article) is explicitly stated on? It seems we should follow the protocol and format presented at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_links and the section following Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_found_it. In the case of the latter if we stay with the current book rather than one in the bibliography noted in said book, shouldn't we change the citation to say something like, "Author 2006, p.XXX, cited in Patten, Fred (2006). Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction. ibooks. ISBN 1-59687-319-1." PedanticSophist (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction, edited by longtime fandom historian Fred Patten, is likely the most comprehensive and detailed source on Furry fandom to date. (I think this one is more than sufficient, but there are definitely plenty of other sources cited in Furry fandom which we can add to the article if you feel we need more.) The fact is stated in several places, most notably in Fred Patten's Introduction (p. 6-12) and Afterword and Bibliography (p. 427-436), but also echoed in the introductions to each section by authors Tim Susman (p. 13-14), Gene Breshears (p.151-152), and Phil Geusz (p.343-344). If I had to choose one, I'd say go with the Afterword and Bibliography as it is the most detailed. —96.247.205.90 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for more sources. But if his book or rather the fact present in there is a secondary or tertiary source and he gives citation to where he got said fact; we should follow the format that I presented, which is from the articles I linked. PedanticSophist (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself by saying you don't want more sources, but want to include the multitude of sources included in the Bibliography. Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction is the most comprehensive and detailed source on Furry fandom to date and satisfies all your requirements you've put forth, but if you want add more, Draw Furries: How To Create Anthropomorphic And Fantasy Animals was published just last year and would probably be helpful in addressing the lack of anthropomorphic animal artwork in the section (which I notice currently focuses on literature only). —96.247.205.90 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting Draw Furries: How To Create Anthropomorphic And Fantasy Animals won an Ursa Major Award last month. —96.247.205.90 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting myself. Please read what I've written more thoroughly. Since the book is citing another book, it should follow the format I showed above. Unless you or another person found the citation in the original book then the book that is currently given should be used. That is because Wikipedia citation rules state, that the citation is where YOU found it. It then continues to state if the book you found it in cites another source to follow this format: ""Author 2006, p.XXX, cited in Patten, Fred (2006). Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction. ibooks. ISBN 1-59687-319-1." It's not rocket science here. PedanticSophist (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which other book you're talking about; you seem to be basing your criticism on what-ifs and speculation rather than anything concrete. The citation currently used is found in multiple places in the Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction, but as explained p. 427-436 is the best choice. The current citation is adequate.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time following the logic behind saying the citation is adequate while insisting on looking for a "better" one. —71.171.110.31 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the links I posted? PedanticSophist (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me if this was all just a quibble about format, you could have made the necessary edit yourself. I thought linking to Google Books in general was acceptable practice.

I've removed the link to Google Books which doesn't meet the protocol (as well as the one for Exploring Children's Literature, for the same reason (and note it doesn't currently meet #Say_where_you_found_it... I tried to decipher the URL but don't know if it was supposed to be p. 89 or p. 224... maybe someone else can have a go at it)).

The citation as it stands currently complies with both format and protocol in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_links and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_found_it. —71.171.110.31 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for Anthropomorphism in fiction?

It seems it would be good to have an article on anthropomorphic fiction or something like that. Right now, when mentioning that some story features animals, we need to link here, while a more specific link would be ideal. We already have "sub-articles" on the topic, at Talking animals in fiction, Beast fable, Stereotypes of animals, and possibly more; it would be good to merge/improve/create something here. Sorry this is so vague, but maybe we can discuss what would be the best thing to do. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here. An article on fiction alone that involves anthropomorphic fiction and of course with a link to this article? If that's the case, personally I don't think it's necessary or required. Maybe a list of books with anthropomorphism in them at the most. But we already have a section on literature and I think it's good enough as it is right now. PedanticSophist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm sure there is a lot to say on anthropomorphic fiction, and in fact I feel more should be said in this article itself. It's a big field, so there could be another article on it, which could take more time over its development. I like it that this article links together the many aspects of anthropomorphism, but I can also see that people directed here from a literature article might not be interested in its other aspects particularly, such as its place in science.(The danger with this subject seems to be that everyone thinks of a book or story and thinks "Oh, I'll throw that in. There has to be some sense of what the really important developments and examples are, either by time, popularity, influence or some such criterion of inclusion.)--Annielogue (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the natural thing to do would be to add content to this article until it becomes too large and we need a new one. :-) What do you think can/should be added here? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some things I feel could be added: a little more about the historical development; a little about fiction for adults (most current anthropomorphic fiction is for children, but...); more on the different functions of anthropomorphism within fiction; a little more on its role in fairy tales; something about toys and the way toys and children's fiction have fed into each other; more about picture books; something about film and tv. It all depends on finding references really, otherwise I would maybe have done it rather than writing this!

What do you think?--Annielogue (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

status as an "ism"

I think the article would benefit from some analysis as to why and how the term exists as an "ism" (recognizing the more pejorative usage in the sciences than in, for example, the arts).
Also, there needs to be some objective justification given for the assumption that certain characteristics (e.g. feelings, desires) are exclusive to humans only. This assumption has been based entirely on belief, not on provable or disprovable fact. (For example, we have no proof that animals don't have feelings.)--TyrS (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

New section

I have just added a new section on Film and television. At present it contains the following unenlightening information:

From the 1960's through the 1990's, anthropomorphism has also been involved in various animated TV shows such as "Biker Mice From Mars" and "SWAT Kats: The Radical Squadron".

In the mid-2000's, a Canadian-New Zealand-American animated TV show called "Turbo Dogs" starred anthro dog characters. In 2010, a French-American animated TV show "The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog" was mostly consisted of woodland anthropomorphic characters.

The upcoming 2011 animated Hindi remake of the 1998 film "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai": "Koochie Koochie Hota Hain" will consist of three anthropomorphic dogs (one female and two males) and the supporting cast of anthro farm animals.

Would someone who knows something about this topic like to write about the great anthopomorphic creations of screen and TV instead of just a rather pathetic list of TV shows some of which were cancelled?

Here are some of the most popular and enduring: Felix the Cat, Mickey Mouse and co, Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, Mr Ed, Basil Brush, Humphrey B. Bear, The Lion King, Finding Nemo.

Works of literature that need a mention include Richard Adam's enormously popular Watership Down.

Amandajm (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Amandajm, and it was something that I thought about doing at some point. Yours is a much more substantial list. With the chiildren's literature I tried to substantiate my choices, and I think lots of the examples can be demonstrated (sales figures, etc) to be significant. A good starting point, your list.--Annielogue (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the Watership Down phenomena quite amazing. It is such a large fat book and (to my mind) rather tiresome because Richard Adam's writing is so meticulously detailed. But people who loved it, loved it to the extreme. A number of teenage girls that I knew said it was their "favourite book". Is it still read? We have the movie, which seems very dated with all its 70's New Age Religion stuff.

Regardless, Watership Down was a book that convinced kids that they really could take on a good solid read of nearly 500 pages, much longer than books that were normally kids' fare at that Pre-Potter date. It was the avid reader's answer to "Jonathon Livingston Seagull". After ploughing through it, "The Hobbit" was a snap.

Oh, so I just checked Google, and the Watership fans are still out there in large numbers.... Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Poetry and nature

Here's a few that come to mind.

• ".... thou breath of Autumn's being...."
• ".... close bosom-friend of the departing sun...."
• "A poet could not but be gay in such a jocund company."
• "It's very rude of him," she said, "to come and spoil the fun!"
• "....like a dying lady, lean and pale, she totters forth wrapped in a gauzy veil...."
• "I saw the different things you did, but always you yourself you hid. I felt you push, I heard you call, I could not see yourself at all...."
• "....and their stockwhips woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back....."

Top of the class if you can name the poem and author without Googling! Amandajm (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

When talking about God in Genesis from the Torah, there is a small error. It says, “he is formed form the dust of the ground ..." I do believe it would make more sense if the quote were changed to, "he is formed from the dust of the ground ..." 74.4.201.21 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. You could have too, you know.--Annielogue (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a good approach is to accept antropomorphism as our human way of bridging the gap between speaking humans and non-speaking animals, by attributing closely similar mental processes to our mammalian sisters and brethren, no further questions asked. Farmacol (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hegel on the Arts

It would be interesting to see a section on Hegel's contribution to the formation of art theory and his comments regarding anthromorphism (as an adequate expression of Spirit in the sense that the material or sensuous form (human/animal appearance) are in complete unity with the essence or spirit).

Extract from Walter Stace's 'philosophy of hegel: systematio exposition'

"...This step was taken by the greeks. for them the divine is no longer empty being, empty universality, but spiritual individuality. The greek gods are personal and individual beings like ourselves. the task which art sets itself is to the know Absolute in its truth, and this can only mean to know it as spirit. now when spirit comes to know Absolute, not as empty being, but as spirit, what it leans is that the Absolute is itself. Hence anthropomorphism is conceived under the mode of human individuality. Anthromorphism is the leading feature of classical art. . . Hence the essential notion of the classical type of art is that in it content (Spirit/Essence/Absolute) and (sensuous) form (physical/appearance/material/phenomena) are in perfect agreement and balance." (p.457) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, because he seems to not understand the history of the idea. I'm not entirely sure of what the "This step" is as you've started the quote too late. It seems that he's saying that the Greeks were the first to use anthropomorphism in their artwork, literature, and religion. Which seems like he's lacking a full perspective on the matter to discuss the subject. Ignoring that though, if you would like to add a section say an "In Art" section or add to a current section including Hegel's ideas with proper citation I think that'd probably be ok. Though I would suggest using a primary source from Hegel versus what sounds like essentially a commentary on Hegel as the source. It seems like Hegel wrote a few books so I would imagine a more direct quote or notion from him is available from those books.PedanticSophist (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Run-away examples

This article has a problem with run-away examples, particularly under the "In literature" section. By listing examples that come to mind without discussion or citations, this opens the door for any passer-by to stop in and add their favorite example to the list. To anyone helping maintain this article (if anyone is), I suggest deleting these examples and finding a reliable source that discusses the phenomenon in literature (and film, etc.) and working from that. – Maky ^« talk » 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Personification is not Anthrpomorphism

Personification proper is the transferring of abstract concept, such as perfectness or angriness, to human form: e.g., Her face is the personification of perfect. Anthropomorphism called "personification" is a literary device used in literature, where a human trait is transferred to a non human object or entity: e.g., The strong boulders proudly standing." Used this way, personification is a subset of anthropomorphic. This is where all of the confusion is. The two are not synonyms. The difference is in usage and in that usage the label "personification" is given to anthropomorphisms to indicate literary device. Dwdallam (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012

Category:Poetic devices 203.34.123.2 (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Anthropomorphism is a Literary device, but is it a Poetic device What's the difference? (sorry, not an English major.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Personification is a well used poetic device. It is in no way related to anthropomorphism. I work with poets and am a poet and this has been a major point of contention trying to give them a good definition and examples when there is no page for it and it redirects to something unrelated. Personification is the attribution of human traits to inanimate objects. This has nothing to do with animals whatsoever! Please remove the redirect so those who know what personification is can create a proper page for it.

amalym — Preceding unsigned comment added by amalym (talk • contribs)

Personification can be used for any entity, and anthropomorphism is used for animals. I don't think anthropomorphism could be considered a poetic device. Also, consensus should have been gained for this. Closing request. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2012

 Not done Is there a reason you can't create an account and edit it yourself? I am just trying to clear the backlog.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In sports

[[:File:Lyo and Merly in Hong Kong.jpg|thumb|Lyo and Merly, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics in Hong Kong.]]

Please change "Hong Kong" to Singapore. Lyo and Merly were mascots of the first Youth Olympic Games 2010 held in Singapore, not Hong Kong.

Also, the photo looks photoshopped in a way that Lyo and Merly were simply pasted onto a photo of the Hong Kong skyline. Please get an official original photo of Lyo and Merly taken in Singapore.

Sources: www.singapore2010.sg/public/sg2010/en.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Summer_Youth_Olympics

203.117.217.147 (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012

I can testify that I have seen God, In A "Anthropothesim" State. This happened twice, in Dry Fork Canyon, Utah, in the year 1995. JimiJ123 (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You may want to keep in mind that Wikipedia cannot accept original research. This talk page is solely for discussing how to improve the article. Rivertorch (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Robots

Are robots and other artificial intelligence programs considered to be anthropomorphic? I always thought that robots are considered to be a different category because robots are define as being human like and I always thought that anthropomorphism ony applies to things that do not normally have human like characteristics. In the past, robots have not been categorized under anthropomorphic, but now, Niemti has started to categorize robots as anthropomorphic. What do other people feel about this? JDDJS (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Like, literally, everything else. Robots "are define as being human like" - nope, take a look at a production robot in a car factory, or a Predator drone, or almost every robot in existence really. (I think you thought of androids.) An example of a video game robot that is NOT anthromorphic looks like that: D0g. --Niemti (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are defining anthropomorphic by appearance alone, why is GLaDOS considered anthropomorphic? Additionally, if robots are so clearly considered to be anthropomorphic, why are you the only person on Wikipedia, as of now, who has categorized any robot as such? JDDJS (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"by appearance alone"? Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics. Not "robots", but "some robots", specifically androids (I told you already). Like Dog from my example is a robot gorilla "by appearance alone" and a dog by program. I am "the only person on Wikipedia" who created this category, maybe that's why. --Niemti (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, go and take a look at the illustration at anthropomorphism.org. --Niemti (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would really like some more opinions here. Do you know of any editors who know about anthropomorphism? If you do please ask them to join this discussion because it is currently just my opinion versus your opinion here. If more editors come here and agree with your categorization of anthropomorphism, then I will gladly admit that I am wrong. JDDJS (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's not "my opinion". It's not really what sexual deviants think it is, you know? And it's not even a subject of anyone's "opinion", beyond you being confused about what anthropomorphism is (and what is a robot, too, and how does it relate to humanoid robots). --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand completely what anthropomorphism is. But would you consider things like aliens anthropomorphic? According to link that you provided, anthropomorphism is defined as "Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena" Which of those categories do robots fall under? They are defiantly not natural phenomena or animals, and I really do not feel that they are inanimate objects because robots are made to animate. To my knowledge, no editor besides you has ever categorized robots as anthropomorphic, so that makes me think that you are the only editor who feels that way. But as I said before, if editors come here and agree with you, I'll gladly admit that I am wrong, and will let this issue go. But as of now, it simply just the two of us, leaving us at a stalemate. JDDJS (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I don't care about "your knowledge of editors categorizing" and other original research. But since you asked, robots are "etc." ("deity, animal, etc.", "gods, animals, etc."), "etc." being anything. And if you want to educate yourself about anthropomorphic robots, you can start now. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And "things like aliens" can only be anthropomorphic when they are in fact anthropomorphic. The Blob from the film The Blob sure isn't. --Niemti (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop being so rude to me? All I want is some other editors opinions. If robots can so clearly be anthropomorphic like you say, it should not be so hard for you to find other editors who agree with you. JDDJS (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 12 November 2012

Hello I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if my comments are poorly placed. I'm having some trouble with this sentence:

"In contrast to this, conventional Western science, as well as such religious doctrines as the Christian Great Chain of Being propound the opposite, anthropocentric belief that animals, plants and non-living things, unlike humans, lack spiritual and mental attributes, immortal souls, and anything other than relatively limited awareness."

Firstly, "conventional Western science" is subtly racist. Non-western countries such as China have long histories of rational investigation of causal relationships within nature. And although I agree that some religions teach that animals are more thing-like than person-like, it is difficult to generalize on this point. Even within Catholicism which views creation as a means for humans to know God, there is the example of St. Francis of Assisi.

Some commenters ask whether objects with a human form, such as androids, have been "anthropomorphized." I think the attribute that matters most is not appearance but agency. When water *wants* to flow down hill and when the wind *wants* to steal your hat, that is anthropomorphism.

I also would re-write or delete the entire section under the heading "Science." Neuroscientists are keenly interested in how the brain perceives and recalls agency. It is misleading to frame science as somehow anti-agency. Being mindful of how one can over-perceive or over-attribute human agency to non-human entities is not the same thing as denying that non-human agency exists.

OhWorldWorld (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

anthropomorphic image

I suggest an image change for the top section.

The example given is a bit difficult to understand, especially to those who are new to the concept of anthropomorphism. Though I certainly understand the point of the image as well as its historical significance, I might suggest a descriptive image that gives the reader a clearer understanding of the root of the topic in its simplest form; The attributes of humans beings bestowed on non-human lifeforms.

Meddlingwithnature (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We must have very different perspectives. Looking at the current image, I immediately get that it's an illustration of anthropomorphism, while the raccoon thing takes me a few seconds, and even then I'm not sure. (Is it really smiling and waving or is it grimacing in pain or growling and lashing out with its claws?) Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? There was a bit of vandalism last March, so it's now permanently out of reach. What gives?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.14 (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

abstractions

I don't see (at a glance) anything here about personifications of abstractions, such as Death (personification) and Lady Justice. Are they covered in some other article? —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Discworld reference?

I was wondering whether Terry Pratchett's Discworld could be listed among the Modern Literature references. It has a pantheon of deities and anthropomorphic personifications (notably Death, Fate, Luck, Time, War, Famine and Plague - potentially familiar roles regardless of knowledge of the fandom - as well as characters equivilant to figures such as Father Christmas, Jack Frost and the Easter Bunny; and they have their own, original personifications). It also has it's own mythopoeia surrounding the existence, role and creation of anthropomorphic personifications. I would have tried to add a reference to it myself were it not for the page being protected.

I also quite agree with Tamfang above - a list of notable anthropomorphic personifications would be very interesting and useful. Perhaps a separate page or category would help? --Gallifreyan Witch (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that both God the Father and Jesus Christ have physical, resurrected bodies, the image of which humans were created in."

Remove this sentence -- it is a stand-alone paragraph that adds no useful information, appears to introduce or champion a particular sect in an unrelated way. Reduces credibility of article.

Wiki95916 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Done subject to consensus that others disagree. Pol430 talk to me 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It. Make u fat like a boss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.238.47 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested Addition

I feel that the Khajiit and Argonians of the Elder Scrolls series should be mentioned under the Video Games subheader. They are beloved races and deserve a mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainDumac (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Per WP:ENGVAR, this edit established the use of the page as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 08:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fork off personification

Free Dictionary definitions for personification and anthropomorphism

Please remove 'personification' as a synonym for anthropomorphism. Personification relates to a poetical use of human qualities describing inanimate objects while anthropomorphism is the attribution of human qualities towards inanimate objects or animals. Jenmargri (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)jenmargri

 Not done While your point is (IMHO) a good one, "personification" currently redirects here. Therefore, your proposed change isn't as simple as it sounds; it would require some discussion first. There would be nothing wrong with you starting a formal proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlike personification, for anthropomorphism, the human attributes given to the nonhuman character is a premise of the character and happens through the entire work. Maybe something about that can be added to this article till something different is done, such as a new article for personification? The article looked like it was protected a couple of years ago... 71.207.162.156 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Free Dictionary is a non-WP:RS. The OED gloss 1s for "personification" and "anthropomorphism" are

• The attribution of human form, nature, or characteristics to something; the representation of a thing or abstraction as a person (esp. in a rhetorical figure or a metaphor); (Art) the symbolic representation of a thing or abstraction by a human figure.

and

• Attribution of human form or character.

respectively. They are clearly overlapping terms and there is no sensible basis for WP:FORKing a discussion of personification, except as the subset personification (literary) or (literature). The main term should be dealt with here. However, personification is the WP:COMMONNAME, not "anthropomorphism", and it's been that way for the entire history of the English language. I'm not terribly interested in shepherding the process but, at some point, the page should be moved. — LlywelynII 03:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Post Chomskian definition

Anthropomorphism also occurs when the entity is human. Example, homo naledi.

New definition:

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of the capacity to think abstractly to an entity that lacks a language function.

The article, and the Oxford Dictionary, is very detailed except as to our very own genus. Then everything becomes more than vague, it is simply omitted. Interestingly, that omission is perhaps an 'innate tendency of human psychology' (which my new age definition is able to get along without, quite well).

FourRivers (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anthropomorphism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100325233703/http://www.vnn.org:80/world/WD0401/WD01-8500.html to http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0401/WD01-8500.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Inhuman traits applied to humans?

I feel this should be discussed, would it be considered anthropomorphism to assign animal traits to human beings? I feel that technically that is zoomorphism but there's a grey area that makes it somewhat unclear. I feel a lot of "anthro" animals such as Sonic The Hedgehog and Mickey Mouse actually more closely resemble zoomorphs in this respect,I believe Walt Disney actually made it quite clear that Mickey was intended to be human with mouse traits, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.206.26 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition to animals

Recently in the news there was a video of a polar bear "petting" a dog. The video was deemed as cute, fluffy, heartwearming, etc, by the media.The next day, the polar bear killed a dog on the same property.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video-polar-bear-gently-pets-a-dog-in-manitoba-164434490.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/churchill-dog-killed-polar-bear-214755901.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Misspelled name

Hello,

The name "Roger Caillous" is wrong and should be changed, and there should be a link to the appropriate Wikipedia page. The spelling of his name is Roger Caillois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Caillois

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.194.21.13 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)