derrida and others

I thought Derrida's argument on being naked with a cat was particularly interesting and relevant in my own life. He begins by stating his argument that what distinguishes animals "from man, is their being naked without knowing it" and that "with the exception of man, no animal has ever thought to dress itself" (p.217). The argument follows that he is ashamed to be naked in front of the cat, not because of the animal that is the cat, but because of the animal that is the human. "as with every bottomless gaze, as with the eyes of the other, the gaze called animal offers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human: the inhuman or the ahuman, the ends of man, that is to say the bordercrossing from which vantage man dares to announce himself to himself, thereby calling himself by the name that he believes he gives himself" (p.221). It's not the animals like cats that make us feel ashamed when we are naked, it is the limitations of man to distinguish themselves as different from these animals that make us ashamed. The cat, therefore, can even be a metaphorical cat. There does not have to be an actual cat present for this argument to work, Derrida is simply using the cat to show how different humans feel it is neccesary to diffirentiate ourselves from other animals. I thought this was especially compelling because I love being naked. When I get home after school or a hard day of work, the first thing I do is strip down to my birthday suit. I sleep naked, and when I wake up in the morning, I loathe the fact that I have to put on clothes to go out into the world. There's a certain natural level of freedom I feel when I'm naked. I've always thought it was a funny concept to have to put on clothes when visitors come, whilst my dog can show his goods for any guest to see.

In relation to this discussion, I enjoyed the definitions provided in the coursepacket, with looking at "animal" in particular. Animal - "2. In common usage: one of the lower animals; a brute, or beast, as distinguished from man" (p.229) and "3. a. Contemptusously or humorously for: a human being who is no better than a brute, or whose animal nature has the ascendancy over his reason; a mere animal" (p.230). I thought the use of the word "brute" and "beast" in these definitions was comical in regards to Derrida's theory that what sets us apart from animals is knowing that we are naked. Sometimes I do wake up in the morning and not realize I am naked, and in that instance, I would technically be the same as a cat. But to use the word brute or beast (with such a negative connotation) to mean the same thing as having my animal nature ascend over my reason is a bit ridiculous.

Which leads me to Bentham. When he asks, "Can they suffer" in regards to animals, I think the commentary is aprropriate: "Being able to suffer is no longer a power, it is a possibility without power, a possibilty of the impossible" (p.227). If there is a part of me that makes me an animal when I am at my most natural naked state, then there is a part of me that is animal that has suffered before. Why then would it not be true for animals such as a cat or dog to suffer too? When we look at the definition of passion in Old English we see that it is "1. Senses relating to phyical suffering and pain" (p.235). When a pet is struck by an owner and wimpers, it is a verbal sign that physical suffering is present. I also feel that animals can suffer emotionally too. When I'm sick or even when I'm sad, I feel like my dog feels sympathy. The definition of sympathy, "the quality or state of being thus affected by the suffering or sorrow of another" (p.239), speaks on behalf of this. Whether or not my dog is sad because I can't play with him when I'm down or because I'm actually not feeling well, he techinically fulfills the definition of sympathy by being affected by my own suffering.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I thought the scene where Rachael is being tested if she is an android is relevant to this discussion. In it, the Rick is reading a scencario where a wasp crawls on her wrist while she is watching TV. She immidiately responds with "I'd kill it" (p.49). It just makes me wonder where the line is that we draw between animals who feel and don't feel? I too, would instantly kill a wasp. or a bee. or a spider. or a snake. At least for me, it seems that unconsciously I believe the animals that feel sympathy and suffering are those that are most like humans, or easily loved by humans (ie dogs, cats, monkeys). As of late though, this class has helped me see beyond that and believe other animals feel too (ie cows, pigs, chickens).