Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magrus Dogs don't need to be "elevated" to man-like life. They survived without humans, didn't they? They are born with or grow every physical thing they will ever need aside from shelter and food. They do not need tools to catch food, nor do they need tools in order to create shelter. Humans indulge in their 'wants' to the point of destroying nature around them. That is the difference I see between humanity and the other species in nature. I do not in any way view this as "superior".
If an animal can feel fullfillment, happiness, contentment, and achievement in finding a mate, raising offspring and surviving, who am I to judge it as a lesser being because it doesn't want a BMW, 6 bedroom house, CD-stereo with surround sound and silk sheets? Being content with a simple life doesn't mean inferior. |
I don't think you are addressing the point that Lestat is making. He's not saying that humans are a higher being because they WANT to do these things, but because they can. Whether a dog wants to dress itself, or a human wants to dress themselves is irrelevant. Can you teach a human to dress themself, with matching colors, etc? Yes. Can you teach a dog to do the same? No. Can you teach a human to do geometry? Yes (some middle school teachers may argue). Can you teach a dog to do geometry? No.
Whether they want to or need to is not the point. The point is that humans (in general) are mentaly capable of higher learning. Animals in general are not (although apes can be taught some basic sign language, dolphins can learn abstract language skills not involving vocals, etc). The point is capability not desire.