This is a very interesting phrase, I assume this is making the claim that the soldier is cowardly. I think this because usually being compared to the devil is a bad thing, so saying a person is "as brave as the devil" probably means they aren't brave at all.

This is another early example of shapeshifting, and while different from the idea of the moon causing a man to turn into a wolf, it still has the same general concept of a man turning into animal.

This is another example of a legend being altered and adapted over time, the idea of a flood killing all but a man and woman was passed down and eventually added animals and suddenly you have the classic tale of Noahs ark.

It makes sense that shapeshifters would be described as "ambiguous, intermediate creatures" because the very nature of a shapeshifter is that they can change to be anything that they want, regardless of species or gender.

This is an interesting point, in the modern age many of these monsters have become more and more sexualized, from werewolves to vampires. I think one of the reasons for this is the inherent mysterious nature of these creatures. The less is truly known the more we can change and wonder.

I agree with his statement that urban myths, campfire horror stories, and folk material in general can fill in the gaps when it comes to fictional narrative. Many myths and legends are formed by people spreading and adding to a narrative, this is why many famous legends have a wide variety of differences in different stories.

It is interesting that the article flips the claims on its head, so much of this article is based on the nature of consciousness, but in the end it is claimed that the true root of the problem is human selfishness.

Elizabeth is claiming that the difference between eating animals vs plants is that because animals are more thinking than plants, by eating them we are abusing our power of higher thought.

This reminds me of the comments on religious dietary restrictions, one of the most famous religious dietary restriction is the ban on the consumption of pig by Jewish, Islamic and Adventist dietary laws. The reason for this is due to the view that the pig is an unclean animal in many cultures.

This is a strange point of view, the way that we distinguish ourselves from other species is our self-analysis, mental time travel, imagination, abstract thinking, cultural establishment, and morality. It has nothing to do with the fact that we don't breed with other species.

It is interesting that they bring up the fact that religions most commonly define themselves not on what they do eat, but what they don't. This seems to be another example of how humans define themselves through choice and reasoning. They define their choice to not consume certain products for various reasons.

Once again the article reminds the reader that his mother is domineering in her opinions, demonstrating how she tends to push her ideals onto others forcefully, believing her opinions are inherently correct.

It's funny how she doesn't really answer his question, when asked to clarify the the target of her lecture, she basically tells him that the target is whoever he thinks it should be. Allowing for her message to cover a broad amount of topics.

I think what the author is trying to say here is that humans view animals not as thinking, feeling, living things, but almost as objects. It is in the same vein as the idea that plants are alive, we know this but we do not concern ourselves with it when we harvest our food.

In the context of the rest of the article it now makes sense why Norma and Elizabeth don't get along, because Norma studies the philosophy of the mind she probably doesn't value animals due to their limited consciousness.

This is a very good way of subtly informing the audience of the relationship between Norma and his mother. By emphasizing that the show of affection "cost her a great deal" it displays that Norma and his mother don't get along, but not to the point of overt antagonism. This helps set the tone for the rest of the reading with the knowledge that their are some personal conflicts between his family and his mother.

The article is almost revering his work, praising it and making it seem almost fantastical. Describing his taxidermy as a moment frozen in time.

It's interesting how these people were viewed as "exhibits", they were seen as nothing but a item, no better than a stuffed animal exhibit.

The article continuously highlights the intelligence of octopus's, claiming their intelligence is almost human while still being strangely foreign. This is to allow the reader to relate to the octopus by connecting our two species by one of the rarest traits in the world, intelligence. To humans, having a creature be so intelligent yet still so different to us is a strange concept, hard to truly understand.

Disney most likely uses animals as a substitute for humans in their films as a way to include more controversial topics into their movies such as violence, class separation, gender, and race. By using animals as the medium, there is now a degree of separation when telling the stories.

Disney most likely uses animals as a substitute for humans in their films as a way to include more controversial topics into their movies such as violence, class separation, gender, and race. By using animals as the medium, there is now a degree of separation when telling the stories.