WRITING NATURE: 
DISCOURSES OF ECOLOGY

 

 Thoreau says in his Journals:

"I think that the most important requisite in describing an animal, is to be sure to give its character and spirit, for in that you have, without error, the sum and effect of all its parts, known and unknown.  You must tell what it is to man....  What is most interesting in a dog, for example, in his attachment to his master, his intelligence, courage, and the like, and not his anatomical structure or even many habits which affect us less."

What do you think about this statement, especially as regards Eckstein's "Two Lives" and perhaps John James Audubon's "White-headed Eagle" and Pandeya's fact sheet "Rough-legged Hawk"?
 
 

Winston:  I agree w/ Thoreau to a point in that I think it is very important to describe an animal's personality, but I don't necessarily think that is always conveyed by looking at an animal just in relation to humans.
Winston:  hello, is anyone there?
Fanny:   I think that Thoreau's thoughts on the importance of animals if only related to man, is a very selfish point of view.  Animals in all aspects are very intersting creatures which lead lives, though different from our own, in very unique and special methods which depend on the environment in which they are engaged.  There is no need to relate man to animals in order to decipher their importance
Winston:  I agree
Lank:  I agree with Thoreau. When I first began reading Two Lives, I was not entirely intrigued with the main character's pet rats. They were like his family. It wasn't until he began to characterize them that I began to care about their relationship.
Jo-Bob:  This way of looking at animals seems a little bit selfish to me.  I do understand what Thoreau is implying- that the easiest way for us to understand animals is how they affect us, but it isn't like the animals don't exist without us.
Winston:  While animals do exist w/o humans for sure, at the same time, it is hard for us to observe them/think of them  in a completely natural environment since by observing them alone, we are looking at the situation from a uniquely human perspecitve.  does that make sense at all?
Fanny:  as creatures of the universe because they have their individual lives which interact with various other species, which don't have to be human, and are of great importance to for instance, the food chain, their natural surroundings, and every day life.  One can describe an animal without the need to return to the aspects of human nature, I think human nature can be almost a barrier to the
Lank:  It is not only describing the animals on human terms. It's also describing them on spiritual terms which is something far more valuable than the obvious physical features.
Jo-Bob:  Of course we look at animals from a human point of view, but we can look at them without involving ourselves, or without seeing them only as they relate to us.
Fanny:  description of the natural world.  All of the modern inventions which are a part of our daily lives, take up space in the natural world, and blind our perspective of what used to be.  I think if humans were engaged in an environment such as animals are today, Thoreau would have never said these words, and would have only had pure feelings of equality and respect instead of pride and contempt.
Winston:  I think mass opinion about animals in general has definetly changed a lot since Thoureau's time... so many people have pets, or view animals as cute and sweet, which I don't really think was the case back then.  I feel like this goes along with that whole thing we were talking about before with fear of nature and stuff b/c we no longer fear animals since we have conquered them in large part...
Winston:  Do you think that Thoreau is really expressing pride and contempt?
Jo-Bob:  Do you think that by looking at animals in relation to humans we are giving them human traits, souls, intelligence? Do we relate them to humans in order to see them as our contemporaries, instead of wholly different from us?
Lank:  It's not necessarily a bad thing to view animals as they relate to us. That makes it easier to understand that they don't only exist in relation to us. The apprecation of animals in and of themselves could not so easily come about without relating to them in a language which speaks to us all.
Fanny:  I really do think that Thoreau is expressing some form of contempt because of his point of view of looking down upon animals, as if they are not important enough unless we can relate them to ourselves.
Jo-Bob:  I don't think Thoreau is expressing contempt . . . to him, maybe relating animals to humans is a way to connect to them.  It's a compliment to them that he sees them in a relationship with humans.
Lank:  Just because he relates to animals on human terms in this particular example, does not mean that he is shortsighted or holding any contempt for the entire animal kingdom.
Winston:  see, I feel like he's a revolutionary for his age.  back then, a lot of  animals were just work animals or wild.  people saw them either as a source of labor or as something to fear.  i really applaud him in some sense for recognizing their personalities
Fanny:  I humans were absolutely nonexistant, however, don't you think animals would have importance?
Winston:  it's also wierd for us to look at something because as post Gen-x-ers on the verge of the 21st century, we have a much more modern, liberal perspective and i know that for me, it's hard to put myself in his shoes...
Jo-Bob:  I agree that he's trying to see personality and individuality in animals, which is a better point of view maybe than seeing them as stupid or all alike
Winston:  animals definetly have their own importance
Winston:  their societies and relations can be just as complicated as ours sometimes (ok, maybe a slight exaggeration, but still) but when we look at their societies, from our perspecitve, we assign them roles that parallel those we see in our lives
Jo-Bob:  They have their own importance, but it's hard to understand from the outside- we understand by how we relate to them
Fanny:  It is much better to view animals individually with different aspects and personalities as creatures, and not to generalize them into categories of stupidity, I agree.
Winston:  okay,  guess that's bye for now...
Jo-Bob:  bye guys
Fanny:  it was very nice talking to you guys, have a  great rest of the day!
Lank:  Actually, Thoreau describes the importance of the animals's vital spirit and characteristics as specifically his own and also helpful for bringing understanding to humans