would seem to me gratuitously insulting
I find it interesting how she says this, when throughout this speech she has already made insulting comments about animals. Her commentary on humans and animals has confused me greatly and I am not sure what her beliefs are at this point anymore.
And the fact thatanimals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to followits rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being:that man is godlike, animals thinglike.
At this point in the reading, I am very confused. She is against the killing of animals but also speaks so demeaning to the animals at the same time.
they had themselves become beasts.
Interesting how in this sentence she differentiates humans from other animals. She fights for animal rights but does she fight for human rights with the same passion?
to his wife’s disparagingcommentary
Up to this point, it is still not entirely clear what the conflict is between the two women besides the meat on the table issue. Is this the sole reason or is there something else we haven't seen yet?
His wife andhis mother do not get on.
Why is this? It makes the reader question what happens with their personal history in the family. What happened between the mother and wife that makes the speaker uneasy?
diorama entry criteria
It would be interesting to see the list of criteria that is necessary for these hunters to obtain.
One might get a dozen lions and still not be lucky enough to get amale.
If altering the bodies and perfecting every aspect of the animal after the hunt is an option, then what perfection from the live animal does it take until the hunters and museum curators are satisfied with their exhibits?
droit du seigneur
"right of the lord"
into a perfectlikeness of what had once been, a “real” copy of reality
This sentence almost contradicts itself. The animals were molded into a "perfect" copy of a once imperfect life.
Man is merely a more perfect animal than the rest. He reasons better.
This reminds me of what we discussed last class and how the octopus was not as successful in human tasks, but in it´s appropriate setting, it thrived. This is similar in the way that the circus animals were helpless when trapped by humans, but in their usual environment, maybe they could have had a better chance of survival or action.
Even this isn’t the whole story
Although we have come a long way, it is clear that we still have so much to learn about the octopus and its physiology.
But the octopus’s brain is built on a different model entirely.
This explains why it is so difficult for humans to understand the octopus. In terms of the brain, there is not a similar or identical model for humans to compare and put in humanistic terms to better understand.
Aristotle, mistak-ing curiosity for a lack of intelligence, called the octopus a ‘stupid creature
This reminds me of the phrase "curiosity killed the cat". Does curiosity always lead to poor endings?
strangeness
Comparing the octopus directly to humans appears to make the author uncomfortable. Although there are very similar characteristics, it is difficult to compare the two species because of the contrast in physical traits.
has anarm span of more than six metres and weighs a hundred pounds – can fit throughan opening an inch wide
This ability is uncommon in most other organisms, which could be unsettling and threatening to imagine.