“We’re not the only animal who understands death, nor are we the only one who grieves, nor the only one who kills on purpose or for fun,” she writes. “Scientists have been trying for a long time to find a characteristic that will definitively separate us from the other species. So far all candidates have fallen. Neither the use of tools, nor culture, morality, or rationality are exclusive of human beings. Nor is the concept of death.”
Ars chatted with Monsó to learn more.
Princeton University Press
Author and philosopher Susana Monsó explores how different species of animals respond to death.
Princeton University Press
Princeton University Press
“The concept of death, far from being a uniquely human attribute, is widespread in the animal kingdom.”
Princeton University Press
Author and philosopher Susana Monsó explores how different species of animals respond to death.
Princeton University Press
“The concept of death, far from being a uniquely human attribute, is widespread in the animal kingdom.”
Princeton University Press
Ars Technica: As a relatively new discipline, you believe that comparative thanatology needs philosophy. Can you tell us more about what philosophy brings to the table?
Susana Monsó: I think philosophy is very helpful to science in general. You have to do philosophy if you do science because you have to make philosophical choices whenever you decide on which topics you’re going to focus on, what sort of questions you’re going to be asking, what kind of methodology you’re going to be using, how you’re going to be analyzing the results, how you’re going to interpret those results. All of these are philosophical choices. So science already has philosophy within it.
But sometimes the approach of a philosopher is needed. Philosophers are trained in conceptual analysis. Most scientists are aware of the importance of conceptual characterizations or definitions, but very often they think that so long as they provide a definition and the definition is clearly set out in the paper, that’s all they need to do. As long as we’re all clear on how we’re using the terms, that’s everything.
I think that’s wrong because not all definitions are equal. Not all characterizations are equal, and how you characterize your terms is going to determine so much of what comes afterward. So I think philosophy has the capacity to analyze concepts and determine how best to characterize them. Philosophers have an advantage because we don’t have to do empirical research, which requires a very narrow focus. You can’t take on a super big question if you’re doing an experiment, it has to be a small question. Sometimes scientists lose sight of the bigger picture. Philosophy has the advantage of being able to look at things from a wider perspective and reflect on how different questions relate to each other, how different fields are connected, and so on.
