Rating: 
Summary: Does Coetzee have a wrong argumentation?
Review: A book plenty of sophisms, and a bad argumentation on philosophical and onthological topics. That's the synthesis of this book written by the south african writer J. M Coetzee. In this writing the author tries to identify himself as a professor linked to movement Vegana (an strict and extremist branch of vegetarianism that consists not only on stop eating meat but also not to use any kind of animal product -which is very very difficult, and almost imposible, since many things are made from animal; from gelatin, brushes, clothes, shoes, most of the aliments, etc-) who gives speeches about the rights of the animals, falling into many errors about the soul and the consciusness of the animals (for those who have studied philosophy it is clear that only we -the homo sapiens sapiens- have a rational soul, in order to understand the world, and that the animals doesn't matter whether we care of them or not)Along with this arguments, Coetzee seems he does not know the ontological and metaphisical diferences of the soul (what I would prefer to call life principle) on the animals and on the human beings. Coetzee claims to stop the 'butchering' (maybe he doesn't know that almost neither of the "big religions" ban animal products consumption -obviosuly, and as well as the other natural resources, animals can be used to human consumption MODERATELY)Coetzee has wrong ideas about the topic, this makes "The lives of animals" a bad book based on its argumentations. It's sad that authors cannot have clearful bases for what they say. Coetzee, you are wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy Through Literature
Review: I have a bias for Afrikaans literature, as my father is an Afrikaner. In the case of this book, by Coetzee, I am not, all, persuaded by the animal rights movement: I continually eat meat without regret. However, I do believe that animals are more than we say they are. They have a sincerity which we lack. I will even say that plants have feelings, though science has not tried hard enough to find out.I notice... that people put down Coetzee because he promotes animal rights... But that is besides the point... the arguments are ingeniously put together.
Rating:
Summary: Not a manifesto
Review: I'm not a vegetarian or a fighter for anyone's rights. The fable told here I find generous and touching, the comments long-winded. The activists will think the opposite. I trust the story: my stars go to the teller.
Rating: 
Summary: Warmth seeps
Review: Introducing his character, Elisabeth Costello, which latter became standalone novel, Coetzze dives himself into the world of animal rights, and humane in intself. Main question that dominates the book is the on that say: "Why does the reason (logos) must be center of judgment?"
And Coetzee does not gives us the answer.
Nor shhould he.
Presented in the form of imaginary lectures that are held by aging writer Elisabeth Costello, this book in his simplest form outshines many that are written of the same subject. In simple terminology, without large philosophical words, Coetzee presents the argument, and doesen't choose to stay on any side of it.
Without giving so much thought on fabula, or even the characters, Coetzee managed to write very inspiring book for every activist out there... and others as well :)
Rating: 
Summary: philosophical quagmire
Review: It's telling that Coetzee is unable to put his own name to the views espoused by the batty Elizabeth Costello, his protagonist. Using the "postmodern" artifice of putting what are not necessarily his own views into a fictional character simply allows him to distance himself from the argument. Peter Singer, for all his faults, hits the nail on the head with his own parody but the other commentaries are pointless meanderings that add nothing to the central argument. I couldn't figure out, for example, what Smuts was trying to say (if anything) about the use of animals as food with her sentimental tract on living with animals. And what on earth is Doniger talking about in her anthropological self-promotion (an advertisement for her own books). There can be no serious defence of the radical animal rights position. It does not accord with what happens in nature and makes just as many assumptions about what animals are supposed to "feel" and "think" as the carnivores who chomp away believing their "victims" are mere fleshy robots. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as the expression goes, and we are no different (in principle) to the predators in the jungle who tear their prey limb from limb without a thought for their victims pain. Should we morally abhor the behavior of natural predators? Of course not, because they have no moral agency. But if they have no moral agency then that surely DOES make them different to us? Thus the animal rights philosophers must either condemn natural predators as evildoers (thanks, W) OR concede that animals are different to us! I I see no evidence for this in their writings; instead they would have us believe that animals are equivalent "souls" to ours - what pathetic nonsense! None of them have been able to draw the line at when an animal can be considered to have rights (ants, scorpions, snakes, frogs, sharks etc. or for that matter plants as another reviewer suggests)...of course they can't because none has the faintest idea what any of these animals is actually "thinking". Singer gives the game away in his essay...the argument is drawn with a fuzzy, warm, friendly family dog and that is where the animal rights sentimentalists get their indignation from. Not from the filthy dung beetle or the darwinist jungle dweller but from the pet population. Coetzee should come out from behind his fictional cover and confess to the irrationalism that his protagonist is accused of in his text. Norma - who criticizes Costello - is the one on the right end of the argument.
Rating:
Summary: An original approach to the issue of cruelty to animals
Review: J. M. Coetzee is known for his critical eye in his novels and essays. With 'The lives of animals', Coetzee now turns that eye to the issue of animal cruelty, and he does it in a novel way that, to my judgement, is very effective. The issue of animal cruelty is so emotionally charged that it is virtually impossible to deal with it only from the realm of Western philosophy. On the one hand, Western philosophy tends to be too detached from the subject discussed. In making the issue more 'rational', Western philosophy loses its power to impact and to convince. On the other hand, Western philosophy is rarely accessible to most people, mainly because its language is so arcane that only an intellectual elite can understand it. In other words, animal cruelty, approached from the point of view of Western philosophy, becomes another academic issue, almost entirely alienated from the gruesome reality out there--a reality that needs to be exposed and addressed in more practical terms. With 'The lives of animals', Coetzee seems to be saying just that, and he deftly uses literature to approach the issue because only literature can make philosophy accessible and deal with emotions. Does Coetzee succeed in his enterprise? I think he did, but he does it by leaving everything unresolved. It seems that Coetzee is saying that, ultimately, it's a matter of personal choice and commitment. Since the issue is so complex, since so many variables enter into the equation, since any side can defend itself with any arguments just as convincingly, we are left on our own, with our own contradictions. Coetzee deserves to be credited for exposing the complexity of the issue, not in providing easy, sloganistic answers. The four commentaries to Coetzee's text attest to the complexity of the issue. I found Peter Singer's reflections particularly germane. He says: 'I feel, but I also think about what I feel. When people say we should only feel--and at times Costello [Coetzee's main 'character' in his text] comes close to that in her lecture--I'm reminded of Goring, who said, 'I think with my blood.' See where it led him. We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism.' I also found Barbara Smuts' reflections illuminating because of the wealth of her experience as researcher in animal behavior. Her thesis that we should learn to treat animals as 'persons' is cogently exposed, and deserves to be taken into account if we are to make any progress in treating animals properly. In short, I recommend this little book to anyone interested in the issue of animal cruelty. It should be, indeed, required reading in some course on ethics to generate debate and try to come with more convincing and comprehensive anwers.
Rating:
Summary: An original approach to the issue of cruelty to animals
Review: J. M. Coetzee is known for his critical eye in his novels and essays. With 'The lives of animals', Coetzee now turns that eye to the issue of animal cruelty, and he does it in a novel way that, to my judgement, is very effective. The issue of animal cruelty is so emotionally charged that it is virtually impossible to deal with it only from the realm of Western philosophy. On the one hand, Western philosophy tends to be too detached from the subject discussed. In making the issue more 'rational', Western philosophy loses its power to impact and to convince. On the other hand, Western philosophy is rarely accessible to most people, mainly because its language is so arcane that only an intellectual elite can understand it. In other words, animal cruelty, approached from the point of view of Western philosophy, becomes another academic issue, almost entirely alienated from the gruesome reality out there--a reality that needs to be exposed and addressed in more practical terms. With 'The lives of animals', Coetzee seems to be saying just that, and he deftly uses literature to approach the issue because only literature can make philosophy accessible and deal with emotions. Does Coetzee succeed in his enterprise? I think he did, but he does it by leaving everything unresolved. It seems that Coetzee is saying that, ultimately, it's a matter of personal choice and commitment. Since the issue is so complex, since so many variables enter into the equation, since any side can defend itself with any arguments just as convincingly, we are left on our own, with our own contradictions. Coetzee deserves to be credited for exposing the complexity of the issue, not in providing easy, sloganistic answers. The four commentaries to Coetzee's text attest to the complexity of the issue. I found Peter Singer's reflections particularly germane. He says: 'I feel, but I also think about what I feel. When people say we should only feel--and at times Costello [Coetzee's main 'character' in his text] comes close to that in her lecture--I'm reminded of Goring, who said, 'I think with my blood.' See where it led him. We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism.' I also found Barbara Smuts' reflections illuminating because of the wealth of her experience as researcher in animal behavior. Her thesis that we should learn to treat animals as 'persons' is cogently exposed, and deserves to be taken into account if we are to make any progress in treating animals properly. In short, I recommend this little book to anyone interested in the issue of animal cruelty. It should be, indeed, required reading in some course on ethics to generate debate and try to come with more convincing and comprehensive anwers.
Rating:
Summary: It will please no-one, and that is its appeal
Review: J.M. Coetzee is never comfortable to read. Nor is he here. The book is a game, a riddle. The fictional form is simply a device. An ageing Australian author goes to visit her son at an American university. Her purpose is to give a speech and to attend a dinner. She chooses to explore the lives of animals. Coetzee's aim is not, apparently, to make friends, to espouse any particular point of view, or to convince anybody of anything. But he needles. And he teases. There is not a page in this slim and brilliantly efficient book that doesn't include some idea, or a challenge to received ideas, to confront us and to invite us to think more deeply. That is his achievement. At the end, any comfortable ideology we took into the book has been exposed. I defy anyone to read it and not to think in a new way about the processes of reason, the homo-centric nature of man, and - more than anything - about the lives of animals, whose place on this planet has never been so tenuous.
Rating:
Summary: Plants?
Review: Ladies and Gentleman- What about plants? They participate in respiration, reproduction, growth, death, and energy production and consumption. How can one step on an ant and also play baseball? The answer--one can't, both kill living organisms. We kill magnificent trees for windows, so we can separate ourselves from the outdoors with a clear slate of glass. We kill winter wheat for our own selfish desires. We manage to chop off the faces of sunflowers for salty indulgences. Where will it end? We should be ashamed of ourselves. Perception=Ability to Engage=Possibility=Creativity=Living. AMEN! Free both the circus elephant and the blade of grass! FREEDOM!
Rating:
Summary: Do Animals have Consciousness?
Review: Literature in many respects is very similar to music. In order to catch the subtle nuances, the beauty or message of the piece, requires more than one sitting. A single piece can appear deceptively simple on the first hearing or reading. But on closer examination, the book, poem or song takes on a more complex significance; you find yourself pouring over the work time and time again, digging deeper into its potential meaning. J.M. Coetzee's ~The Lives of Animals` is one such example. This book is short, simple but elegantly written; containing ideas and arguments that could well take weeks to adequately unpack to reach a semblance of understanding of the many issues it proposes we ponder. In short, the novel concerns itself with the contentious issue of animal rights. More specifically, animal cruelty, in regards to our treatment of the edible, warm blooded variety: cattle, poultry et al. Reaching for a hard hitting comparison to make his point, Coetzee uses the Nazi concentrations camps and the genocide of the Jews as an example of how we currently treat and prepare the animals for slaughter in the henhouses and abattoirs around the planet. This comparison is flawed to some extent, (which a character in the novel points out) but Coetzee manages to make the similarities work as the novel progresses and the arguments are fleshed-out. However this is not the main thesis of the book. The central question the book proposes we consider is whether animals have consciousness. And if they do have 'reasoning' consciousness, how can we justify their slaughter for our own gain? Our current Darwinian view of the world, that is, human beings hovering at the top of some evolutionary hierarchy, and all other living things falling in neat categories below, at the end of the 19th century, paved the way for some pretty horrific wars and some juicy justifications for the crimes committed in the 20th century. The Nazis used Darwin and his theories to justify their massive slaughter of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and avant-garde artists, particularly the German Expressionists, calling it 'degenerative art'. Are animal's mere biological automatons? Are they 'degenerate', and therefore an easy target for exploitation? And if animals do have consciousness, what rights do they have? This is not the place to launch into the arguments of animal rights or human rights for that matter. But what Coetzee has done with this exceptional book, is to present these important issues and complex philosophical arguments in a fictional format, enabling the subject to be more accessible to anyone interested in the way we treat our fellow creatures. Spend an hour reading this book; then read it again - you will not be disappointed.
|
