Of course we are animals. We are just animals that have developed a very sophisticated level of culture, one that then make us much more capable of affecting our surroundings and of detailed communication with our fellows.
This communication includes abstraction and complex modeling, which then engenders things like religion, and selfishness, and a sense of specialness, that then allows some kinds of people to consider themselves above the other animals.
The Bible puts it well, in multiple instances where humans are 'told by God" that they have dominion over the birds and the bees.
and then that leads to stupid Cambridge dictionary definitions of the word that simply reposits the religious view of animals. the childish view of animals.
But we are not alone among the other animals in having things like tribes, warfare, language, communication, tool development and use, cultural differences between groups, centralised childcare, social hierarchy, group welfare, and even intelligence and self-awareness. just look at chimpanzees and gorillas, for example. it’s just a matter of degree that separates the various species from each other. any one claiming there is a hard cut-off line that suddenly makes humans not like other animals doesn’t know their ass from their elbow.
But it is a view that still holds sway for cultural reasons, derived from a time before there was science that could prove otherwise, and before the decline of religion in people’s worldview.
and other languages are guilty of equally nonsensical linguistic hangovers, even though they are now aware of the facts of life. For example, in Japanese, and I guess to some extent, Chinese, pretty much everything that lives in the sea is considered a fish. Seaweed excepted.
Haha. im just messing around pointing out how absurd that website is in its definitions. I was just shocked as i used to think Oxford was something of a well respected place of higher education. Normally we wouldnt expect such errors from that kind of place.
and the Cambridge Dictionary is aimed at a junior audience, lacking the gravitas and responsibility of the Oxford dictionary (which has set itself up as the true defender and final arbiter of the language).
This is related to why i wanted to poll this. While living in Japan and ordering vegetarian, they would always give me seafood. i found that funny. I had to learn to tell them, no animals in my food haha, thankfully the kanje is close enough to mandarin. interestingly chains were easier and even mos burger can swap any burger to a veggie patty no problem. Wish taiwan, land of vegetarians, could do that. Thats besdies the point though.
I very much agree with your words on religious and cultural artifacts from more ignorant times hanging on till today. But i dont give universities that write dictionaries a pass…
Ahh damnit. I just saw that its Cambridge haha. thanks for pointing that out, what a dumb ass. Not sure how i got that wrong. off for some coffee and food now.
Edit. I feel guilty shitting on oxford instead of cambridge. Heee is oxfords main entries
I have issues with that kind of definition as well. mainly, its a very dumb definition. However, in chinese language thats not really the case. If people from china think that, we have more to worry about than we thought.
I am here to read more perspectives. I am actually mostly interested in the reasobs people vited no as i truly do not understand the logic and want to know more. Otherwise, the conversation is good. Enjoy reading peoples perspectives.
@Taiwan_Luthiers like rickroll stated, like cars? I dont think any cultural Chinese norm is as simple as if it moves it is an animal hehe. They must have some more complexity to their thoughts.