2017-08-14, 18:09
Well I can mostly only repeat what I said on the Werelist a few years ago the last time this was discussed.
A theory is defined as a well tested hypothesis, but let's not be pedantic. Realistically, for something to be a theory it must at least have some compelling logical reasons to believe it's true, and why it is superior to the alternatives.
A far simpler explanation is that this is an idiosyncratic manifestation of modern culture as regards the place and status of animals and their representations in modern western society. In that sense, it is a kind of extension of furry.
You can go back and look at animal shamanism, and things like that throughout history and see a parallel, but in my opinion this is an aesthetic, superficial similarity. The significance is not the identification as animal, which is simply the form of appearance the phenomenon takes, but the real relationship and context which makes it possible.
What is represented is more significant than the representation, so the superficial similarity to animal shamanism becomes a moot point, if it is something rooted in the peculiarities of modern society.
You explanation, if true, does have the advantage of consistency in that regards, but the claim is staked on a contingency that can be empirically verified. It hasn't been verified yet, and I think there are many reasons to doubt that it will be. It seems like you are relying mostly on anecdotes.
Anecdotes only cease to be anecdotes when they are tied into a system, and the contingency that would make your anecdotes systematic hasn't been met.
A theory is defined as a well tested hypothesis, but let's not be pedantic. Realistically, for something to be a theory it must at least have some compelling logical reasons to believe it's true, and why it is superior to the alternatives.
A far simpler explanation is that this is an idiosyncratic manifestation of modern culture as regards the place and status of animals and their representations in modern western society. In that sense, it is a kind of extension of furry.
You can go back and look at animal shamanism, and things like that throughout history and see a parallel, but in my opinion this is an aesthetic, superficial similarity. The significance is not the identification as animal, which is simply the form of appearance the phenomenon takes, but the real relationship and context which makes it possible.
What is represented is more significant than the representation, so the superficial similarity to animal shamanism becomes a moot point, if it is something rooted in the peculiarities of modern society.
You explanation, if true, does have the advantage of consistency in that regards, but the claim is staked on a contingency that can be empirically verified. It hasn't been verified yet, and I think there are many reasons to doubt that it will be. It seems like you are relying mostly on anecdotes.
Anecdotes only cease to be anecdotes when they are tied into a system, and the contingency that would make your anecdotes systematic hasn't been met.