All things round can make a bobbin’ fookin’ start. What, you say? Complicated but vaguely familiar (no?) —as the audiobook was to me during an evening’s stroll in the rain; Not the fault of the Author who writes scholarly and beautifully, this I solemnly swear.

One is entitled to hold wrong opinions that doesn’t necessitate correcting—definitely not with condescension by anyone with enough hubris to be so certain of one’s level of rightness—This was where the book took me through a series of jewels including not expecting perfection from everyone else and that self-deprecation—while indication of some introspection—can cross the line towards unhealthy obsession with the self if done excessively —Jeez Whiskers, I feel called out. *Overdue self-reflection alert* and yes, yesterday counts as long ago—mantra of OCD the relentless; makes me sick, literally, in all sense of the word ‘sick’—though it does lead to a mixbag of result: frustration, confusion, tears, shame, contrite, determination, enlightenment and so on; like a lightbulb appearing to signal incoming nuggets of wisdom or my most cringey moments on loop, ad infinitum, both above my head—thankfully only one distressing. I make a mental note to give the book another panning for gold; Rain gives it a mystical quality it did not intend. Some application to my life will make it better and to me in it—I hope—including this post—I hope the Author(s) never reads this. Tsk Tsk

Speaking of cringe, I am here to deliver some good news to those with a completely ordinary and healthy admiration for cat’s testicles—either fixed and dainty or au naturel in its bulbous glory—prepare to gingerly indulge this season like never before. This ball of fun Instagram page of which I speak, is run by a Japanese photographer whose love for all spherical protuberance is boldly and without reservations displayed; Here is the link for your enjoyment –> https://www.instagram.com/yanyam2929/

Now for the sake of collective wisdom —ok, really just mine—I ask, ought we feel embarrassed on behalf of the cats whose privates have been photographed and put on the internet for the world to see, instead of being simply tickled by—aside from the obvious—the dedication to such an unusual endeavour and fascination that, as it turns out, is quite in demand?

Long-ass post ahead!

That depends (perhaps) on whether cats and other animals alike, are capable of secondary emotions such as shame and humiliation for which to feel indignation alongside them, as a result of thinking, reasoning, reflecting and so on. In any case, if it were embarrassed it should have worn pants—Just kidding. This attribution of emotions, intentions and other things associated with the human mind is termed anthropomorphism. To view these non-human entities as having these and especially higher order mental processes would have a bearing, amongst other things, on (judgments of) our actions towards them and their actions as regards responsibility attribution as one would for intentional actions.

Anthropomorphism allows for the creation of an empathic connection where there’d normally be none including with inanimate objects like cheeky bananas. We all do this, according to David Hume —perhaps not everyone will be entirely convinced by this though the difference is a matter of degree and depends on culture, nurture, experiences, education etc. It is but one way amongst many through which people feel empathy towards anyone/anything including those they don’t know or have never met which will account for some to call for justice against corporations who carry out harmful acts such as forced child labour and turn others into environmental or animal rights activists or volunteers in a children’s hospital in their free time; others protest against low or starvation wages, repressed voting rights, poor living conditions or employment rights, violation of human rights and so on even when they are in no danger of them because they know or fear that others are subjected to such conditions.

“…There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object, those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good-will to every thing, that hurts or pleases us…The unknown causes, which continually employ their thought, appearing always in the same aspect, are all apprehended to be of the same kind or species. Nor is it long before we ascribe to them thought and reason and passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of men, in order to bring them nearer to a resemblance with ourselves…”

—David Hume, the Natural History of Religion, N 3.2, Bea 40-1

There are many things to take from the above quote but for now: We have a tendency to attribute familiar human-related aspects, not necessarily only manifestations of the physical self, to another, in order to facilitate our understanding of them; Maybe Kant’s concept of appearances will help elucidate this — the difference between our perceptions ie representations of reality (phenomena) vs actual reality (noumena) stems from the process of knowledge acquisition —through the structure of our minds thus a human way of perceiving and this, reflects our relationship with the world.

The opposite of ascribing human traits is the failure to do so which can have dire consequences to a human subject — dehumanisation. Like attribution, omission will also change our interactions with the subject and how we treat ‘the others’— of a different social class, minority groups especially foreigners with different culture, language, religion etc — might be subjected to discrimination, oppression, exploitation based on unfounded beliefs that informs negative stereotypes or an ‘overriding’ purpose such as enforcement of agreements or regulations that justifies — without having regard to justifiability, proportionality or necessary (moral) assessment of an individual’s risk to the good of society, their mental health or well being — limiting freedoms and exercise of rights, intrusion into private lives, deprivation of right to participate in social, cultural and leisure activities etc

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.

 —Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:429

Implicit in the concept of humanity is —as rational beings—the capacity/authority to set and determine our own ends using reason and principles (practical reasoning). ‘End’ has a negative sense which acts as moral constraints limiting what we do in pursuit of our ends. ‘Mere means‘ is distinct from using people to achieve our ends as long as we also recognised the other’s humanity – the former entails that they could not (actually) consent as in Kant’s example on false promises or coercion, duress or taking advantage of the vulnerable and desperate especially through unequal bargaining power or abuse of position of trust etc if deeper consideration were given to the meaning of ‘consent’. Kant’s formulation of humanity entails recognising everyone’s moral standing ie as morally autonomous which does not depend on meeting certain standards or through achievements but by virtue of simply being what or who he is, his humanity — this, we have a moral duty to (constantly) strive for everyone, equally.  

Why?

There is not necessarily anything extraordinary in the one who is capable of committing atrocities according to the Hannah Arendt’s assessment of Eichmann and conception of the banality of evil — it can be committed through thoughtlessness or incapacity for independent critical thought. Add to this wilful blindness and possibilities abound even without the need for depravity or sadism—prevalent, then normalised until it becomes an ordinary fact of life (banality) — a shuddering thought if present in an egocentric society that values social status, financial success or practices in-group favouritism, bigotry, blind and unquestioning faith etc over fairness, equality, integrity, non-injury, truth, personal responsibility, sanctity of life, benevolence, mutual respect etc; Where is the exact point at which to frown upon undesirable actions or consequences and demand for change/accountability from those to simply, let live?

This post of a lesson will count as resolution 2022: strive to develop critical thinking and empathy — be reflective, self-critical, always checking and assessing principles, values, consequences but with the right balance — Return life to the basics yet elevate meaningful connections and endeavours — have fun, live, love like fuckingly mad people but stern and tough when necessary— be kinder to myself and others but resolute in the pursuit of justice and fairness —live and let live but with both eyes wide open. Just keep climbing up that mountain.

References

Baggini, J. (2020). Life: A user’s manual: Philosophy for (almost) any eventuality. Ebury Publishing. 

Kleingeld, P. (2020). How to Use Someone ‘Merely as a Means’. Kantian Review, 25(3), 389-414. doi:10.1017/S1369415420000229

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336