Partridges
are rather plain birds with an unremarkable appearance. They belong
in the Phasianidae family and reach about the size of pigeons when
mature. Apart from a brief mention in The
12 Days of Christmas,
there is little special to say about them. Yet in his famous Walden,
Henry David Thoreau praises young partridges to the highest degree
and attributes noble character traits to these seemingly ordinary
birds (Cf. Thoreau 217f.). But is this even possible? Can animals
possess what we call character, and if so, what does this tell us
about our perception of it?
Transcendentalist
Thoreau admires the depth of the partridge fledglings' eyes and
argues that “all intelligence seems reflected in them. They suggest
not merely the purity of infancy, but a wisdom clarified by
experience.” (Thoreau 218). While it is customary to describe
animals as intelligent, attributes such as wisdom appear only seldom
in reference to non-human beings. There is no clear distinction
between what is regarded animalistic and what comes across as human.
The majority opinion is that animals act out of instinct, whereas
humans make conscious decisions. Nonetheless, this does not answer
where the origin of so-called character lies. If character was
defined as the product of the conscious decisions made, then there
would be no way to employ the principle of character on animals. But
it is not as simple as this. There are probably only few pet owners
who would deny that their domestic animal has a unique character,
however there are countless humans to whom society refers to as
characterless. There is obviously no evident answer to what exactly
determines character, but there are quite interesting theories. One
of them is articulated by writer Louis Menand in his 2010 essay Head
Case.
He suggests that character traits, to a major part, can be defined
by biological and chemical determiners, or, as he puts it, “can be
explained by genes, or by natural selection, or by brain amines.”
(Menand 6). Following this line of thought, most animals could
develop a character since it would be merely the result of
predetermined intensities of certain instincts instead of a
consciously acquired conglomerate of traits. If we assume this to be
correct, the use of character as an evaluative attribute becomes
irrational. It does not make sense to praise or criticize someone for
possessing a trait that they cannot help but have. Still, we speak in
high terms of people who act in acknowledged ways, regardless of
their backgrounds. Logically, we should favor a person who must
overcome their traits in order to display a desired characteristic
over another one who simply has it by default, but in reality, we are
more likely to admire the latter for their giftedness, although
“those people are just born lucky.” (Menand 6).
The whole issue is extremely complex
and people tend to be highly incoherent when they refer to character.
I do not dare to make a definite statement about a subject that not
even scientists agree upon, but I have got reason to believe that
there might be something in between these theories of completely
predetermined character and entirely conscious acquisition of
character when I look into my dog's eyes because he definitely shows signs
of character, but certainly not intelligence and wisdom.
Works cited:
Menand,
Louis. “Head Case.” The
New Yorker
1 Mar. 2010. The
New Yorker.
Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
Thoreau, Henry David, and Jeffrey S Cramer. Walden. New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2004. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment